
Class. 
Book. 






^o 



Copyright ]^^_ 



COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT. 



GREAT SPEECH OF 

Caleb Powers 




BEFORE THE JURY THAT SENTENCED HIM TO DEATH UPON THE 

CHARGE OF BEING AN ACCESSORY BEFORE THE FACT 

TO THE MURDER OF WILLIAM GOEBEL. 

OBSERVATIONS ON THE TRIAL 

AND INCIDENTS OF THE DELIVERY OF THIS MASTERLY ADDRESS, 
BY LLEWELLYN F. SINCLAIR, OF COUNSEL FOR POWERS 

PRICE 25 CENTS. 



CONTENTS 



Introduction by L. F. Sinclair, one of prisoner's local 

attorneys 1 

Introductory remarks of prisoner, including a discussion 

of the law of the case 5 

Position of both sides outlined 17 

Was there a conspiracy between the prisoner and any of 
the alleged accessories before the fact, to the murder 
of William Goebel 19 

Did the prisoner aid, counsel or advise either of the four 
named J principals — Holland Whitaker, Dick Combs, 
Jim Howard or Berry Howard — to murder Mr. Goebel 27 

Did prisoner aid, counsel or advise the other alleged prin- 
cipal, Henry E. Youtsey, to murder Mr. Goebel 33 

Did the use of the militia form a part of the alleged con- 
spiracy 83 

What did the mountain crowd have to do with the killing 

of Mr. Goebel, if anything 95 

The pardons of Governor Taylor discussed 115 

Too many star witnessess 123 

Too many detectives in the case 125 

Conclusion 139 



Copies of this book may be secured by addressing 

K. F. BEADLEY, Georgetown, Ky. 



OBSERVATIONS ON CALEB POWERS' TRIAL 



Speech in His Own Behalf, Before the Jury That Sentenced Him to 

Death on the Charge of Being an Accessory Before the 

Fact to the Murder of "William Goebel. 



By Llewellyn F. Sinclair of Counsel for Caleb Powers. 



The reading public, not only of Kentucky, but of the nation, Is 
familiar with the tragic murder of William Goebel in the State house 
yard at Frankfort on January 30th, 1900, and the promiscuous indict- 
ment of persons of high and low degree, as principles and accessories 
before the fact in the commission of this crime. The reading public 
of the State and nation is also familiar with the long drawn out legal 
battle, and the frequent trials of numerous persons accused of having 
had some sort of connection with the murder of William Goebel. The 
bitterness, hate and passion growing out of this horrid crime, the 
partisan politics necessarily involved in the testimony presented on 
the trial of the parties accused, inevitably tends to transform the 
court-room into a forum for the exploitation of all the angry feeling 
aroused during the memorable campaign preceeding the assassination 
of Mr. Goebel. Men, and women too, for that matter, who desire to be 
reasonable can understand how unfortunate for the accused these facts 
must be. The calm thoughtful people of Kentucky and the nation, 
can understand what an unequal fight these accused persons have 
been compelled to face. To recapitulate let us outline briefly tb* 
conditions surrounding these trials. 

The parties accused, to commence with, are charged with killing: 
the Democratic leader of the State, the motive alleged being one of 
politics, the accused parties being Republicans of a more or less de- 
gree of prominence in the public affairs of Kentucky. The parties are 
indicted, in a court presided over by a Democratic judge, the oflScers 
being Democrats, they are tried before a Demvcratic court, with Demo- 
cratic officers, and before Democratic juries. This is net said in a 
spirit of criticism or censure, but in all candor we submit to any 
reasonable person whether these facts are calculated to prejudice the 
trial of the accused. That these things may be perfectly understood 
we de&ire to submit a further observation. There are Republicans, 
qualified for jury service, available in these trials, of equal standing 



with their Democratic neighbors. This cannot be gainsaid. Suppose 
a jury was selected made up of six Republicans in politics — men that 
are competent and qualified for jury service, possessing character and 
standing as citizens equal to that of any citizen in the State of Ken- 
tucky for that matter, and then there were six other jurors of equal 
standing of the Democratic persuasion, does any one doubt that a 
jury so composed would never agree upon a verdict? If this conjecture 
be correct, a further question naturally arises and it is this: If a 
verdict of conviction could not be obtained before a jury of mixed 
politics is a verdict rendered by a jury composed of Democrats 
very conclusive the guilt of the accused? If as the gentlemen 
contend on the side of the prosecution, the evidence of the 
guilt of these persons is so conclusive, for the purpose of silencing the 
contention of the defense and the defendants themselves, why don't 
they say to the trial court: "If your Honor please, the accused has 
made frequent complaint of the fact that the jurors in these cases 
have been composed of men who are Democrats in politics. I desire 
to forever silence this objection of the defense, believing the evidence 
of the prosecution sufficient to convict the defendent before any jury 
"~niade up of honest men, without reference to their politics, therefore, 
I will ask your Honor to instruct the sheriff to summon a venire to try 
this case from each political party, requesting that good, sober discreet 
citizens be so summoned." Would not fairness and justice be subserved 
by such a course, and would not a verdict rendered under such cir- 
cumstances appeal to all persons with far greater weight than those 
returned in the past, ft is not an answer to say that the letter of the 
statute does not require such practice. It has been done by some 
of our greatest judges. Judge Gresham of the Federal Court, several 
years ago on the trial of several Democrats in Indianapolis accused 
of a political offense, directed the marshall to impanel a jury of mixed 
political faith; the same thing was done by Judge Cochran of the 
Federal bench on the trial of several Democrats, charged with election 
offenses at London, Kentucky, only a year or more ago. It does not 
make any difference whether the letter of the statute requires such 
a course or not, equity, justice and fairness demand it, when one 
i8 accused of an offense in which there is so much of politics involved, 
and all men, wherever juYisprudence is known, throughout the world, 
will applaud and approve the judge that stands for such a policy. 

A celebrated authority has said that "The history oi the human 
race is made up mostly of their errors and misfortunes." If this be 
true "The philosophy of history" as Voltaire was want to say, deaia 
with error in the abstract and concrete. And it might not be improper 
to gay that the things here set down, whatever the result may be, 
when the end of these trials shall have been reached, will in some 
ii;c.::.»ure as hietory subserve the interest of truth and justice in the 



future. When the storms of passion and prejudice shall have subsided 
and the clear sunlight of truth shall have penetrated the crevices of 
falsehood, let us hope that the wisdom of deliberation and fairness 
may to some degree be advanced by a perusal of the story of the un- 
happy tragedies growing out of the murder of William Goebel. We 
say tragedies advisedly for the covert crime appalls, while to the 
minds of many the victims of unreasoning hate causes awe. Who 
will say that in future years, when the zealous participants in this 
unfortunate drama shall have passied away, that this crime and those 
accused of committing it will not take their pla,ce alongside the vic- 
tims of that miserable coterie of perjurers who appeared immediately- 
after the mysterious death of Godfrey and the circulation of the story 
of the "Popish Plot." Oats, Corstair, Dangerfield and others of their. 
ilk, repeated with apparent plausibility the murderous schemes of 
Roman Catholics in connection with these alleged crimes and a fren- 
zied public stood aghast with indignation. (See Macaulay's England, 
Vol. 1, page 216-221). 

Another parallel will be found in the alleged Georges' conspiracy 
to murder Napoleon Bonaparte, which impartial history shows to 
have had its origin in the political exigencies of the times, from 
Napoleon's standpoint. (See Bouinenne's Napoleon, page 306-319). 
The judicial murder of the Duke d'Engheim, traced directly to the 
Tuleries, would have submerged in eternal infamy the name of any 
one other than he who could "cross the Alps, mingle the Eagles of 
France with the Eagles of the Craigs," and render French valor glor- 
ious forever on the fields of Austerlitz. 

Coming on down to a later period, we see again an instance of 
unrestrained fury directed against those persons accused of the assas^ 
sination of President Lincoln. The world knows now to a certainty 
what it refused to believe at the time this crime was committed. Mrs. 
Surratt and other innocent persons were convicted. Arnold, O'Laugh- 
lin and others were thrown into prison for life, for no other rea- 
son than that it was shown these persons had on one occasion entered 
into an arrangement with Booth looking to the "kidnapping" of the 
President. 

Then again there is the Dreyfus trial. One will look in vain to the 
history of any criminal trial in all the past when the person accused 
was charged with a political offense or a crime involving politics, that 
the truth was not obscured and confused by the passions and preju- 
dices of the hour. But out of all these errors and misguided zeal there 
will come progress; for, suffering and misfortune is "the badge of all 
our triumphs"' 

The speech made by Caleb Powers in his own behalf before the 
jury that tried him in Georgetown, in August, 1903, should be read by 
every citizen willing to accord a hearing to those that are accused of 



crime. Those that read this calm examination of the testimony intro- 
duced against him will not be impressed alone with the novelty of a 
defendant arguing his own cause. The elimination of self which Mr. 
Powers studiously observed throughout his argument, presenting the 
law and the facts as though he appeared in behalf of a client having 
no claim upon him other than his professional services, will naturally 
suggest to the mind of the intelligent reader as showing a remarka- 
ble spirit of fairness on the part of this young man who has languished 
in jail for more than three years. 

Perhaps it would not be amiss just here to note some of the inci- 
dents occurring during the delivery of Mr. Powers' speech. 

Sometime prior to the closing of the testimony the newspapers, 
through the tireless energy of industrious correspondents, secured 
the information that the defendent would make a speech in his own 
behalf. The public, generally, was deeply interested in hearing this 
speech. Nor was this anxiety to hear Mr. Powers confined alone to 
those who were his friends and believed in his innocence. Friend and 
foe alike were eager to hear from his own lips the things he desired to 
say in behalf of his Iffe and liberty. 

The arrangement between the attorneys for the state and the 
defense provided for three speeches for the State and four for the de- 
fense. Mr. Powers desired to close his case. It happened that the ar- 
gument for the State preceding Mr. Powers' speech was completed at 
5 o'clock, the adjourning hour of court in the afternoon of August 27, 
which required Mr. Powers to begin at the night session. The weather 
was intensely warm. Long before the convening hour the spacious 
court-room was packed to suffocation with men and women represent- 
ing every calling in life. The matron and maid, beauty, wealth and 
poverty had congregated to witness a scene the like of which has 
rarely occurred in the history of all the past. Mr. Powers came in 
accompanied by the jailor and retired with his attorneyc to the jury 
room. He was neatly dressed in a light suit of clothes, wearing a white 
Alpine hat. At 7:30 o'clock p. m. court was called to order. The 
Judge directed that the argument proceed. Mr. Powers emerged 
from the jury room, with head erect, dauntless and brave as he pushed 
his way through the mighty throng and began his speech. Composed 
and calm, in a low tone of voice, amid the pall and silence of that 
vast audience that hung with bated breath upon his e-ery word, the 
youthful prisoner and orator proceeded with apparent unconscious- 
ness of the gravity of the occasion. He spoke until 9:30 o'clock, court 
adjourning until the following day. The interest aroused by Mr. 
Powers first appearance before the jury was increased between the 
adjorunment at night and the convening of court the next morning. 
Leng before the hour of convening of court the succeeding day, the 
court-room was jammed with sweltering humanity, all bent upon hear- 



ing every word the defendent should say in. conclusion of the splendid 
speech began the previous evening. Anxious humanity presented 
themselves for admission hours before the Court-room doors were 
opened. One sick lady left her bed against the advise of her phyai- 
cians', saying: "I can be sick any time, I may never have an oppor- 
tunity of hearing Mr. Powers again." Many people did not leave their 
seats during the noon, adjournment. Some had lunch and some had 
none. At every session of Court during the argument of Mr. Powers 
hundreds were turned away after the Court-room was filled to its ut- 
most capacity. Mr. Powers resumed his argument at 9 o'clock, speak- 
ing until noon; beginning again at 1:30 o'clock, he concluded at 3:30 
"p. m. having spoken nearly six hours in all. That the public may have 
an opportunity to read this masterly address, away from the scenes 
and circumstances under which it was delivered, we give the speech 
herewith in full: 



Mr. Powers' SpeecK. 

May it please the Court, and you also, gentlemen of the jury: I 
know that you must be tired listening to argument, but if my strength 
and this intense heat will permit it, I desire to say a few words in my 
own behalf and concerning whose life and whose liberty, you have 
taken upon yourselves a solemn obligation to deal. In doing so, I 
exercise one of the privileges which our law-makers in their wisdom, 
have vouchsafed to every person accused of a crime within the con- 
fines of our Commonwealth. I would not, however, take advantage of 
this provision of our law, but for the fact, that for over three long years 
I have been forced to lie in the jails of this State, classed as a crim- 
inal, branded a® a murderer and denounced an assassin. 

I have borne in silence, and with what fortitude I could, these grav« 
charges, together with two adverse verdicts, at the hands of my fel- 
low-countrymen. I now feel that I owe it to myself to be heard. Over 
three years ago, I was torn from a high ofllcial position to which I had 
been elevated by the people of this great Commonwealth; thrown in 
jail and charged with the commission of an atrocious and cowardly 
crime. The Legislature of our State, in the excitement of the hour, 
and actuated by motives of hatred and revenge, appropriated $100,000 
of the people's money with which to prosecute me, $25,600 of which 
sum was set aside for the investigation of clues; in other words that 
amount was to be paid to detectives to furnish the needed proof. In 
Addition to that, a large sum was offered and hung up as a tempting 
morsel for my conviction, right or wrong. 

With such ind'ucements' as these, and under all circumstances, 
and surroundings in this case, is it any wonder that Weavers 
have wandered from the distant peaks of Colorado to get their slimy 



hands into that filthy sum? Is it any wonder that perjured scoun- 
drels of the brand of NoakB and Anderson found their way to the wit- 
ness stand during my trials, and swore to prepared and infamous 
falsehoods against me? Is it any wonder that weak and base human- 
ity of the character of Golden and Culton began to swear and con- 
tinued to swear for immunity? 

Is it any wonder that the assassin hearted Cecil, after having 
wandered this weary world around, from Kentucky to Kansas, from 
Kansas to California, from California to Kansas and from Kansas back 
to Kentucky, should finally find his way to the home of the Prosecut- 
ing Attorney in this case; there given a comfortable night's lodging — 
"par nobile fratrem;' from there be taken before the Grand Jury th« 
following morning to tell such a story as would continue to him hi» 
liberty under the forms of law? Is it any wonder that the weak and 
villainous Youtsey, after having spent more than two years in the 
penitentiary of this State, should emerge from that living tomb, when 
he sees, or thinks he sees, through his testimony a ready chariot t© 
the green and inviting fields of freedom? We should not be surprised 
at such happenings, they are the natural outgrowth of such conditions 
and inducements. 

Since the very day of my arrest, my conviction in this case, has 
been both a pecuniary and a political necessity. It is more so to-day 
than it has ever been. The prosecution cannot now well afford to' 
admit that they have hounded to the earth for three years an innocent 
man. They cannot now well afford to admit that they did me wrong, 
when I was deprived of my office and thrown in jail. These would be 
bitter words for them to be forced to utter: "We have charged this 
young man with murder wrongfully; we have torn him from an office 
of trust and honor; we have lodged him in jail; we have carried him 
from one bastile of this State to another, in chains and irons; we have 
thrown him behind gnawing bars of prison life; we have forced him to 
stay in the same steel cages with worthless negroes and to have them 
for his daily companions ; we have inflamed the public mind against him 
through a servile press, with hideous stories of an awful conspiracy 
in which we believed him to be implicated. We have tried him in 
our courts by his enemies, politically, and we have convicted him, but 
in all that we have been mistaken, in all that we have done wrong." It 
is true that the prosecution is in the confession business but they are 
not going to make such a confession as that; nor, will they permit you 
to bring in a verdict of "not guilty" in this case, if it is within their 
power to prevent it. 

We have heard a great deal said during the progress of this case, 
and especially by Col. Hendricks, about the prosecution having no la- 
terest m the conviction of an innocent man. He said that the Com- 
monwealth could have no sort of interest in my prosecution imless I 



was guilty of that with which I am charged. And for the purpose of 
adding plausibility to their argument, they have said that Arthur 
Goebel would not, for his right arm, lend aid or encouragement to the 
prosecution in this case unless he knew beyond all doubt, founded up- 
on reason, that I am guilty of that with which I am charged; and Mr. 
Franklin has said upon former trials of this case, and. I presume he 
will say upon this one, that he is a sworn officer of the law, gentle- 
men of the jury, that no filthy lucre of any kind lingers in his pocket 
to swerve him from his duty one way or the other, that he is doing 
his duty to his country, his conscience, and to his God. I say, men, 
we should not be surprised at such pleas and speeches on the part of 
the prosecution. This is not the first time in the history of these 
cases that the life of an innocent man has been asked by these gen- 
tlemen. 

In the trial of poor old Berry Howard, over at Frankfort, Mr. 
Franklin called him a monstrous, murderous, frozen-hearted assassin, 
and asked that his life go out upon the scaffold. Mr. Franklin was 
doing that in his alleged official duty, and he is prosecuting me now in 
his alleged official capacity. Mr. Franklin was mistaken about the 
guilt of poor old Berry Howard because the jury said In that case: 
"We the jury agree and find the defendent not guilty." Mr. Arthur 
Goebel was present upon that occasion and was lending aid and en- 
couragement to the prosecution. He, no doubt, believed Berry Howard 
was guilty of the murder of his brother. There is no doubt he believed 
it. He was relying upon the word of this weasel-eyed wretch Heniy 
E. Youtsey. Youtsey had told him on the v^y day of his arrest that 
he had let Howard into the private office of the Secretary of State 
with Dick Combs, Jim Howard and others. Mr. Goebel believed Henry 
E. Youtsey and upon that belief in Youtsey's story he had an innocent 
man dragged from the mountains of Kentucky and put upon trial for 
his life. 

And in the trial of Capt. Garnet D. Ripley, the papers had it that 
Mr. Franklin made one of the most powerful efforts of his life, that he 
spoke for four long hours and asked the jury to take the young man's 
life from him. 

Mr. Arthur Goebel was present aiding in that prosecution. In 
the belief of the guilt of Capt. Ripley Mr Franklin was mistaken and 
Mr. Arthur Goebel was mistaken because the jury in the case of Capt. 
Garnet D. Ripley said: "We, the jury, agree and find the defendent not 
guilty." And they sent him to his home. So this is not the first time, 
men, in the history of these cases that the prosecution has been mis- 
taken and Mr. Goebel has been mistaken in his pursuit of a man he 
believed to be implicated in the murder of his brother. The truth Is, 
men, that the prosecution in this case is most crazed for a verdict o£ 



guilty. They feel that a verdict of acquittal at your hands would 
break the backbone of their alleged conspiracy, and for this to be done 
at this particular time, with Taylor and Finley, yet at large and yet to 
be tried, and with the coming State campaign on hand, would be a 
serious blow to the hopes and the purposes of the prosecution. They 
keenly appreciate the necessity for a conviction, and in order to ac- 
complish it, men, they have stopped at hardly anything in this case, 
but upon the contrary they have stooped to a great many thiags. They 
have attacked my integrity in the open; they have trampled under foot 
my liberty; they have tried to grind my honor into atoms, and they 
have even gone to the extent of attacking the integrity of you gentle- 
men in the back and by stealth, and at the same time professing 
friendship. 

Leaving out of view that fact that it is always unpleasant to sit in 
judgment upon sacred rights of one of your fellow men, your 
position in this case from another view-point is by no means an en- 
viable one. Truth to speak, men, they are relying more upon your 
political affiliations for a verdict of guilty than they are upon the 
law and the testimony, and the oath you have taken to give me a fair 
trial. I think I can make that clear to you. 

The county of Bourbon, in 1896, gave McKinley a majority of over 
four hundred votes, and in the campaign of 1899 it gave Taylor a 
majority. Taking the McKinley vote as a basis, had there been no 
distinction made on account of politics, there ought to have been 
serving on this jury about seven Republicans and five Democrats. 
And yet in the face of this fact, and divers others like unto it, the 
prosecution maintains, that politics has nothing to do with the trial of 
this case. Mr. Campbell and Mr. Hendricks- have gone to the extent 
of saying that whatever politics have been injected into this case, 
have been injected into it by the defend ent. Injected into it by the 
defendant! What interest, pray tell me, has the defendant in injecting 
politics into this case? If there is one thing more than another in 
which the defense is interested in, it is, in keeping politics out of 
this case. If there is one thing more than another in which the defense 
is interested in, it is, that this case be tried in the spirit of truth and in- 
quiry and not in thespirftof political hatred and revenge. What could it 
profit the defense, pray tell me, to draw the bow across the strings of 
political passion when eleven of those strings are Democratic strings 
and, possibly one, a Republican string? Politics has been injected into 
this case, men, not by the defendant; but by the prosecution, and I 
think I can make that clear to you gentlemen. 

The statutes of our State provide, that it is the duty of the jury 
commissioners to place within the jury wheel the names of sensible, 
sober, discreet house-keepers of the county, over twenty-one years 
of age, and residents in different portions of it. These are the qualifi- 



9 

cations and the only qualifications that jurors are required to possess; 
and when the sheriff is sent out over the country to select men to do 
jury service in this, or any other case, these are the qualifications 
and the only qualifications that the jurors are required to possess. 
And vhen sheriffs are sent out, as in this case, to select men to do 
jury service, these are the qualifications and the only qualifications 
that the jurors are required to possess. There is no provision in our 
law which says that Democrats only shall do jury service. There is 
no provision in our law which says that Republicans shall not do 
jury service. The laws of our country do not take into consideration 
the politics of the juror. That being true, men, there must be some 
reason why there are eleven Democrats doing jury service in this case 
and possibly one Republican. There must be some reason why there 
was not a single Republican on the jury that tried me the last time 
I had a trial, although one-half of that jury came from the good county 
of Bourbon. There must be some reason why there was not a single 
Republican on either one of the juries that tried Jim Howard; not a 
one on the jury that tried Berry Howard; not a one on the jury that 
tried Capt. Ripley; not a one on the jury that tried Youtsey. 

It will not do to say that Democrats always happen to be selected 
to do jury service in these cases. It has happened thus in too many 
cases and too often. It will not do to say that the jury commissioners 
always "happen" to place the jury wheel the names of Democrats and 
never happen to place within the Jury wheel the names of Republicans. 
It will not do to say that if the jury commissioners do "hap- 
pen" to place within the jury wheel the names of a few 
Republicans and the names of a few Republicans "happen" 
to be drawn from the jury wheel, or the sheriff in his 
perambulations over the country "happens" to summon a few Republi- 
cans to do jury service that prosecution almost invariably "hap- 
pens to reject those particular Republicans from jury service. It will 
not do to say that out of 176 men summoned in this case, at this trial, 
from a county that gave McKinley over 400 majority in 1896, that 172 
of these men thus summoned "happened" to be regular Democrats and 
but four happened to be Republicans, and none "happened" 
to be Independent Democrats. It won't do to say that Mr. 
Franklin "happened" to exhaust one of his peremptory challenges in 
this case, upon one Charles W. Penn, a Republican, when this jury 
box was first filled, and when there were eleven Democrats subject to 
peremptory challenge. Have you ever asked yourselves the question 
since this trial began: "What is it that peculiarly fits me for jury 
service that unfits my Republican neighbor?" "What are the qualifica- 
tions that I possess that makes me a competent juror in the eyes of 
the prosecution that my Republican neighbor does not possess, and 
makes him Incompetent?" These are serious questions, gentlemen, 



10 

What is it that a man must possess to make him a competent juror in 
this case or in these cases that is neither prescribed by the laws nor 
the statutes of our country? The Republicans possess all the statu- 
tory qualifications. In the eyes of the law they would be competent 
jurymen. Then what is it that a man must possess to 
make a competent juror in this case that is neither pre- 
scribed by the laws or statutes of our States? What can 
it be? Have you ever asked yourselves the question, Mr. 
Ingalls, what can it be? I will tell you. You must in the 
past have voted the straight Democratic ticket. And why must you in 
the past have voted the straight Democratic ticket before you are 
permitted by the prosecution to serve aS' a juror in this case? The 
reason is, that they expect you to vote the straight Democratic ticket 
in the rendition cf your verdict. Be not deceived about it. In other 
words', to say least of it, they expect your political affiliations to help 
you render that verdict. Then in what attitude are they placing you 
men before the communities in which you reside and before the eyes 
of the world — relying upon your political affiliations for a verdict of 
guilty, whether the law and the facts authorize such a verdict or not? 
If I were you men, careful of my good standing in the country and 
jealous of my honor, I would resent certainly any such imputation up- 
on my integrity, whether those imputations came from friend or foe. 

I am a Republican, gentlemen. I have never had any apologies to 
make for my Republicanism. I have none to make now. You 
gentlemen are Democrats and you have a right to be Democrats. You 
have a right to affiliate with whatever political party you believe to be 
to the best interests of this country. The man who would deprive you 
of that right is an intellectual thief andi robber at heart. But no man 
has the right — no set of men have the right, to expect of you a cer- 
tain sort of verdict by reason of your political affiliations, wl-ien you 
have entered the jury box and have taken a solemn oath that you took 
to try me from the law and the testimony. Doubtless you gentlemen 
are saying in your heart that it does look like the prosecution has had 
a sinister motive in this. Doubtless you are saying in your hearts that, 
if the prosecution, is relying on our political affiliations for a verdict 
of guilty, that they are relying upon a broken reed. There is not an 
honest man on this jury but what is saying that in his heart. Doubt- 
less you are saying that your political affiliations shall have nothing to 
do with the rendition of your verdict one way or the other. There Is, 
not an honest man en this jury but what is saying that in his heart,! 
not a one, my friends. Doubtless you are saying that you have! 
no bias or prejudice in this case, one way or the other and all thati 
may be true; and yet you may be mistaken about it. I am told that! 
there are certain fever districts in some of the States of this Union,! 
notably in Florida and Missouri, that so long as one remains at, ftl 



11 

certain elevation above the sea level that he is immune from the 
dreaded fever; hut that so soon as he descends below the safety line, and 
comes in contact with the germs of the disease and that he contracts 
it. If you were a stranger in that country and should drive down and 
drive out and some one should say to you: "You have contracted the 
fever," you would say: "You are very much mistaken. I never felt 
better and freer of disease in all my life;" and yet without your 
knowing it, you would have contracted the fever. And you, gentlemen, 
may have come to this case with that fever of prejudice with which 
you are not aware. Such a thing is possible. 

I know that you men have heard of me. I know you have heard 
a great many things said about me that are untrue. I know that is a 
fact. The truth is, and I expect to speak the truth if I know it, the 
truth is, that the question of my guilt or innocence has long since 
become a political question in this State. You know that the Demo- 
cratic papers, from the great dailies down to the little country organs, 
have continuously and vociferously proclaimed that I am guilty. The 
Republican press on the other hand says I am innocent. Political 
campaigns have been waged in this State upon that question. Politi- 
cians have been elected to office and others have been defeated for 
office in proclaiming the one or denying the other. It has become a 
political question throughout. On the one hand stands the great mass 
of Democratic voters throughout the State, who have been taught to 
believe that I am guilty. On the other hand, stands the great mass 
of Republican voters throughout the State, who believes I am not guilty. 
You know that. The communities from which you gentlemen came 
are divided on that question to-day and they are divided on it, in the 
main, as you know, along political lines. The affair generated out of 
political strife and excitement. The Democratic leader of the State 
was killed — shamefully murdered. The Republicans were charged 
with that murder, and it is almost impossible to take politics from 
this case. It is a difficult matter not to make up one's mind about a 
thing when it is in everybody's mouth; when it is discussed through 
the newspapers, from the pulpit, on the huskings, at the country cross 
roads, and at the country stores. 

Some of you men said that you had formed opinions in this 
case. You, Mr. Lawson, you Mr. Wyatt, and you, Mr. Mitchell, said 
that you hadi formed opinions, and that you were afraid to risk your- 
selves and afraid to trust yourselves to give me a fair trial. Others of 
you said that you had formed opinions in this case. You, Mr. Wilson, 
said that you would go into the jury box with prejudice and that that 
prejudice would have to be removed by testimony. You, Mr. Ingalls, 
said that you had an opinion formed, and both of you Mr. Estes, said 
that. Others of you said you had not formed any opinion. You said that 
Mr. Ryan and you Mr. Booth, and you Mr. Hill, but you may have 



12 

come to this jury box, like the man out of the fever district of Florida, 
having that germ of prejudice and bias of which you are not aware; 
such a thing is possible. And in the name of all that is dear and sacred, 
I ask you to rid yourselves of all feelings of hostility, bias or prejudice 
that you may feel towards me by reason of my political aflBliations, if 
you have any, or by reason of the prejudice you have 
against the section of the State from which I come, if you 
have any, and give me that same sort of a fair and im- 
partial trial that you would give one of your neighbor's boys. What- 
ever may be my politics, whether good politics or bad politics, it does 
not alter the fact that I am a citizen of this Commonwealth and a 
human being, and entitled to a fair and just trial at your hands. 
Whether the section of the State from which I come be a good sec- 
tion or a bad section; it does not alter the fact that I am entitled 
to a fair and an unprejudiced hearing at your hands, and I believe that 
you are going to do what you can to give it to me. I believe that. But I 
ask you to bear in mind that we are all a frail, weak, short-sighted 
set of human beings in this world; and that our prejudices and likes 
and dislikes have a great deal to do in controlling our conduct through- 
out life. The prosecution know this, and, as I say, they have had you 
summoned here in the hope that your political affiliations would write 
for you a verdict of guilty. How insidiously has the poison of politi- 
cal prejudice and revenge been injected into this case! Everything 
has been done and' said that could be done and said to make you 
gentlemen have contempt for me. You know that. The mountain 
people have been sneeringly referred to. Mr. Hendricks called them 
murderers, and maurauders, red-handed assassins and black-hearted 
villians. That conduct on the part of the prosecution is neither fair 
to you nor to me. It is not fair to you because it is an effort on the 
part of the prosecution to have you convict me by reason of your pre- 
judice, and none of us is without. It is not fair to me, because it is 
an effort on their part to have you convict me outside of the law and 
independent of the testimony. I think the prosecution should deal 
fairly with you gentlemen, and with me, and I think we should deal 
fairly with each other, and so far as I am individually concerned I 
propose to deal fairly with you in the discussion of this case and I 
desire to say to you now that if I advance any argument that does not 
seem to you to be reasonable and right, I ask you to reject it. If I 
misquote or misstate any of the testimony, I beg of you not to consider 
it, because you ought not to. I think we should deal fairly with each 
other, men, and if I properly understand the mission of an advocate 
before a jury, or of a lawyer, or client in the argument of a case it is 
not, or should not be, to misquote or misrepresent the law or to dwarf 
or twist the evidence to suit one's own ideas in any indidvual case. 
Argument before a jury should never be used for the purpose of 



13 

artfully covering up the salient points of either the law or the testi- 
mony to the end that Ihe jury may be induced to bring in an unjust 
verdict, unjust either to the State or unjust to the accused. So far 
as I am individually concerned, I know that I am gifted with no such 
words, or worth, or power of speech to force you either beyond the 
law or the testimony in the case, if I had desires of that character, 
which I have not. 

These gentlemen prosecuting me here have been given all the ad- 
vantages that this glorious Blue Grass country and other favored sec- 
tions oi our land affords, while my home and life have been cast among 
people whose advantages have been poor, whose means have been 
limited, and whose opportunities to fit their sons and daughters to 
cope with their fellow men have been of the worst. Besides, men, as 
you see, I am a mere boy, unaccustomed to making speeches like these 
able and adroit lawyers I have no power to write my innocence on 
your hearts and engrave it on your benes as justice in this case says 
that it ought to be done. If I had the same power of speech, and the 
same force of logic as my friend, Mr. Franklin, I could convince you, 
almost before my argument began, that the harming of Mr. Goebel 
never entered my heart and that I am the worst abused and perse- 
cuted man ever accused of crime on the American soil. But these 
extraordinary gifts, men, I do not possess, and I shall, therefore, have 
to ask you to go over the law and the testimony in this case in but a 
common place way, and if I can be of any aid to you in arriving at a. 
correct verdict, I will feel that I have discharged my duty fairly and 
faithfully to you and been of service to myself. I ask you to let us 
reason together. 

If you have me convicted in your hearts already, if you feel 
that I am a guilty assassin and you regret that you were brought 
into this close contact with me, if during the progress of this 
trial your ears have been open and anxious and ready and willing to 
catch everything of a damaging nature brought out against me and 
turn a deaf ear to all that has been said on the side of the defense, 
then any efforl on my part to convince you that I am an innocent man 
would be a waste of my needed vitality andi a useless consumption 
of your time. But you gentlemen will not do that. You have taken 
a solemn and impressive oath: "I do solemnly swear that I will try 
this case according to the law and the testimony and r; true verdict 
render, so help me God," and so far as within your ; . wer lies, I 
believe you will keep sacred that solemn oath. Whatevei raay be your 
religious tenets, whether believer or unbeliever. Catholic i Protestant, 
Jew of Gentile, whatever may be your political affiliation-, whether it 
be that of a Democrat or that of a Republican, the cfnh you have 
taken has within it a mighty force, that ought to lift ewvy man who 
takes it out of all political bias and prejudice; so far as rur weak and 



14 

imperfect nature will allow us, it ought to lift us into a 'region of ab- 
solute duty and absolute truth. When your verdict is rendered, the 
testimony and the law in this case ought to authorize and justify you 
in that verdict. You have raised your hands between your heads and 
beaven and called witness to Almighy God that a true verdict you 
would render in this case. The eyes of a proud Commonwealth are 
upon you; aye, the eyes of a great nation are turned towards the scene 
of this trial. The prayers of a justice-loving people are with you in 
the rendition of such a verdict that innocence merits, right demands, 
your heart sanctions and your consciences approve. I have always 
believed that the right in this case would in the end prevail. Seasons 
in and seasons out, years in and years out, through dark fortunes and 
through bright, (if there have been any bright), I have continued 
pleading and appealing to my fellow countrymen, and I am now par- 
ticularly pleading and appealing to you gentlemen to end this long 
and^ bitter controversy in a way that justice demands, right approves 
and your hearts sanction. 

I am sure you will agree with me that when It is ended that it 
ought to be ended in such a way that no harm will befall an innocent 
man and that no guilty man shall go unpunished; and I am sure you 
will agree still further that when it is ended it ought to be ended in 
such a way as will be a credit to Kentucky for her sense of fairness 
and justice in dealing with those accused of the infraction of her 
laws. If you men should render a verdict of not guilty in this case 
and it should turn out within the next week or within the next year 
that I am guilty, then Kentucky would be held in just contempt for 
the lax administration of the law; if upon the other hand you should 
find a verdict of guilty in this case and it should turn out within the 
next one hundred years, as it will turn out, that I am not guilty, then 
a greater injury has been done the State than if she had put herself 
down upon the side of law and justice and mercy and humanity. So 
it becomes important, gentlemen, to the State of which we are citi- 
zens that a just verdict be rendered in this case. Such a verdict as 
will do no injury to the State, no harm to the accused, no violence to 
the oaths you have taken to render a just verdict in this case and 
such a verdict as will not in future years bring remorse of conscience 
to your souls. 

There is but one thing before you in order to determine what that 
vcMi''\(:'. phi'll be. and that is the question of my guilt or innocence. So 
far as the merits of this individual controversy are concerned, it does 
not matter whether one thousand mountaineers or ten thousand were 
brought to Frankfort by me before the killing of Mr. Goebel, because 
no man who came with that mountain crowd has been indicted for 
firing the fatal shot. So far as the merits of this individual contro- 
versy are concerned, it does not matter whether Taylor called out 



15 

the militia before or after the shooting of Senator Goebel. I was 
not a military officer, gentlemen. I had nothing to do with >-he militia. 
No connection has been shown between me and the militia. So all 
these things do not matter. The question is, the thing with which I 
am charged is, did I procure some one to shoot and murder Senator 
Goebel and was he killed in pursuance of that counsel and advice, if 
I did so counsel and advise? 

That is the question in this case, men, and in the determination 
of that question there are certain well defined roads we must travel, 
two beacon lights by which our heads and hands and hearts are to be 
guided in our deliberations, and that is the law that has been given 
to you by this Honorable Court and the testimony you have heard from 
the mouths of the witnesses. That is it, men, those are the two things: 
the law and the testimony. 

This is a peculiar case in some respects. Under ordinary circum- 
stances and under ordinary conditions the juries of the country are 
left to decide what weight and what credence they are willing to give 
to the testimony of any witness or any number of witnesses, but 
that is not true in this case. Human wisdom and human experience 
/ has been ^uch that when men are charged with conspiracy to murder 
their fellow men, those men cannot be relied upon to tell the truth 
when they are testifying against another alleged co-conspirator for 
their own liberty. The Court tells you in one of his instructions, I 
believe number eight, that one alleged conspirator cannot corroborate 
another alleged conspirator, that you cannot believe all the alleged 
conspirators unless their testimony is corroborated by other testimony 
material to the issue. If the county of Bourbon was filled to stand- 
ing room with men all swearing until they were black in the face 
to any particular fact, if they were alleged co-conspirators, this Court 
tells you that you cannot believe them all unless their testimony is 
corroborated by other testimony material to the issues. If the black- 
est convict in the penitentiary at Frankfort should come here wearing 
the badges of infamy around his person, the law tells you and the 
Court tells you that his testimony would be entitled to more weight 
and more belief, and more credence than the testimony of a million 
Cultons, a million Goldens, a million Cecils, and a million Youtseys. 
Why? Because the law would not challenge the negro's testimony. 
It would not require the negro's testimony to be corroborated before 
it could be believed, but the law does challenge the testimony of Cul- 
ton. Golden, Cecil and Youtsey & Company, and says that it must be 
corroborated before it can be believed. 

And another thing in regard to these instructions. We have 
heard a great deal said by Colonel Hendricks about a reasonable 
doubt, believeing things beyond a reasonable doubt, before you 
could coDvict the defendant in this case. If you were to rely 



16 

upon the words of Colonel Hendricks, the words "reasonable doubt" 
are a mere emptj' phrase. It does not mean anything, and does 
not signify anything. This honorable Court has a different conception 
of that phrase, "beyond a reasonable doubt." I will not take up your 
time to read these instructions — that was done by Judge Morton — 
but I desire to say to you that in every instruction upon which a 
verdict of guilty can be asked that you will be compelled to believe in 
the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. This Court has gone 
farther than that. It fears that you may overlook that important 
language in these instructions, and he has embodied it in a separate, 
distinct and independent instructions, and said to you that you cannot 
find the defendant guilty unless you believe beyond a reasonable doubt, 
from the testimony, that he is guilty of that with which he is charged. 
What does that phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" mean, gentlemen? 
It must mean something; else, the Court would not have used it. And 
I desire to say to you that there is a great distinction between the 
trial of civil and criminal cases in this particular. If this had been 
a civil case the Court would have told you that the verdict ought to 
go to whichever side has the greater weight of testimony to sustain 
it. Our law-makers in their wisdom have said this. Jurors in all civil 
cases have hung up before their eyes the scales of justice, as it were, 
and are required to render a decision for whichever side has the 
greater weight and value of testimony to sustain it. If it is for the 
plaintiff, find for the plaintiff. If it is for the defendant, find for the 
defendant. But that is not the law in the trial of criminal cases. 
Human liberty and human life are worth more than mere dollars and 
cents. It is so precious and so sacred in the eyes of the law, 
before you, in the capacity of jurors in this case, can lay violent hands 
upon my liberty, you must believe from the testimony, beyond all 
doubt, founded upon reason, that I am guilty of that with which I am 
charged. Greenleaf, the great writer on this branch of the law, has 
defined the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt." He says it means 
this: "That in all cases of circumstantial testimony, the facts intro- 
duced upon the side of the prosecution must be such that there can 
be no escape from the conclusion that the defendant is guilty. In 
other words, the crime with which the defendant is charged could not 
have been committed at the hands of another or by the procurement 
of another." That is the law in this case. I will give Mr. Franklin 
the opportunity and the privilege to read to you from any law book 
known to civilized man, to confute, or contradict the position I have 
here taken. Applying that law to this case, there is not a possibility of 
you gentlemen rendering a verdict of guilty. For. is it not possible 
that Youtsey fired the fatal shot on his own volition? Is not that 
possible? Is it not possible that there could have been a conspiracy 
without me being a member of it? Is it not possible that Butler and 



17 

Miller and Jim Frank Taylor and E. U. Fordyce and Ed Mentz and 
Walter Day and George W. Long, told the truth, when they told you 
that my mission to Louisville on the 30th of January, was for a legiti- 
mate 'and honorable purpose? If any of these positions can be true, 
there is no possibility of there being found in this case, a verdict of 
guilty. 

Now, gentlemen, having briefly stated the law governing this 
case, I desire to take up the testimony and see what it proves and 
what it disproves. Before there can be a contention between any set 
of individuals upon any sort of a proposition, there must be some com- 
mon ground upon which to stand, something upon which the two con- 
tending parties agree. The prosecution upon the one hand and the 
defendant upon the other, in the case, agree, that Senator Goebel came 
to a shameful death and that those responsible for his taking off should 
be severely dealt with. We agree further, that assassination is the 
most cowardly and blackest of crimes known to the catalogue of 
offenses. 

Every honest impulse of the human heart revolts and rebels 
against it. We agree further, I presume, that the killing of Goebel was 
the worst possible thing that could have befallen the Republican party 
in this State, and whether we agree on that last pr6position or not, 
you gentleme* know that it is nevertheless true. Then the thing upon 
which we agree are, that Senator Goebel came to a shameful death; and 
that those responsible for his taldng off should be punished; and that 
his killing was the worst thing that could have befallen the Republi- 
can party in this State. 

We differ as to who is responsible for his death. The prosecu- 
tion claims that Senator Goebel came to his death as the result of a 
huge Republican conspiracy of which they say, I was a member. And 
in sopport of their contention they introduce a large mass of testimony 
which may, for the convenience of discussion, be divided into some five 
main divisions: 

They say, first, that the bringing of the mountain crowd to 
Frankfort, five days before Senator Goebel came to his death consti- 
tuted a part of the conspiracy to murder him. 

They say, second, that it was the plan of those implicated in the 
conspiracy to have the fatal shot fired from the office of the Secretary 
of State and that it was fired from there. 

They say, third, that I absented myself from that office on the 
30th of January, 1900, for two reasons; first, to give the assassin an 
opportunity to use that office, and for the further reason, as they al- 
lege, to try to take suspicion of the crime from myself. 

They say, fourth, that the militia was to be used for the pu-rpose 
of protecting those alleged to be implicated In the idUing from arrest 
or from violence and that it was so used. 



18 

And they introduce, fifth, a large mass of threats and statements 
on the part of divers individuals, Culton, Golden, Youtsey and others, 
to try to bolster up their claim and theory of a conspiracy. I think I 
have stated with accuracy and with fairness the claims of the prose- 
cution in this case. 

The defendant, upon the other hand, denies these various allega- 
tions on the part of the prosecution and says first, that Senator Goe- 
bel did not come to his death as the result of a huge Republican con- 
spiracy, or ef any conspiracy, of which I was a member. 

The defense says, second, that the bringing of the mountain crowd 
to Frankfort, five days before Senator Goebel came to his death, did 
not constitute a part of the conspiracy to kill Senator Goebel as al- 
leged by the prosecution; but that they came to Frankfort upon a legi- 
timate and peaceful mission; to petition the Legislature and remon- 
strate against those in power from overthrowing the will of the people 
as expressed at the polls. 

The defense says, third, that if the fatal shot was fired from the office 
of the Secretary of State that it is the very best proof that I am not 
implicated in it; because nobody but a fool, would ever agree for a 
murderous shot to be fired from the windows of his office, or his home, 
if he were connected with it. 

The defense says, fourth, that I did not absent myself from the 
office on the 30th of January, 1900, for the purpose of either letting 
my office be used for the purpose of assassination, or for the purpose 
of trying to cover up my alleged connection with it; but that my trip 
to Louisville on that day was for a peaceful and legitimate mission, of 
trying to bring to Frankfort, mostly from Western Kentucky, another 
crowd of petitioners to petition the Legislature. 

The defense says, fifth, that the militia was not used, as alleged 
by the prosecution in this case, to protect the assassins from arrest, 
but that it was used for the purpose of pi'otecting the occupants of the 
Executive building and the attach ees of the various offices from mob 
violence. The defense further says, that if the prosecution be right 
in their claims that the militia was used for the purpose of protect- 
ing the assassins, that I should not be held chargeable with it, because 
I was not a military officer and I had nothing to do with the calling 
out of the militia. Tliere has been absolutely no connection shown 
between me and the militia, one way or the other. 

And the defense claims, sixth, as to these various threats 
and statements proven on the part of the prosecution, that they 
have been proven by men like Golden, Culton and Cecil and 
Youtsey, who are under indictment in this case and swearing 
for immunity, or they are sworn to by such men as Broughton and 
Huber, Smith and Company, who are swearing for money. Those are 
the claims of the prosecution and the defense in this case. Somebody 



19 

must be right; somebody must be wrong. The claims of both sides 
cannot be right because the two claims are antagonistic, one to the 
other, and the existence of the one set of claims negatives the exist- 
ence of the other set. 

(Court here took a few minutes for recreation). 

"When the Court kindly gave me a little rest, gentlemen, I was 
just saying that the claims on the part of the prosecution and those 
on the part of the defense could not possibly both be true. Now, I de- 
sire to take up the 'first claim on the part of the prosecution, namely, 
that Senator Goebel came to his death as the result of a huge Republi- 
can conspiracy of which they say I was a member. That claim on 
the part of the prosecution is like every other claim they make. It is 
either right or wrong. If they are correct that Senator Goebel came 
to his death as the result of a huge Republican conspiracy of which 
I was a member, I see no escape for you gentlemen but to bring in a 
verdict of guilty. If upon the other hand, they are mistaken in that 
claim you, gentlemen, cannot do anything else but bring in a verdict 
of not guilty. 

Senator Goebel, from the evidence, came to his death in one or the 
other of three ways. First, he either came to his death as the result 
of a misadventure which I will not discuss; second, or he came to his 
death at the hands of some one acting on his own volition. Third, 
or he came to his death as the result of a conspiracy. If he came to 
his death at the hands of some one acting on his own volition, I could 
not be guilty. I was seventy-five miles away from the scene of the 
tragedy at the time of its commission and could not have fired the 
fatal shot. He either came to his death in the one or the other two 
ways that I have stated, and in either case I could not be guilty, or he 
came to his death as the result of a conspiracy, and if he came to 
his death as the result of a conspiracy, I was either a member 
of that conspiracy or I was not a member of it. If he came to 
his death as the result of a conspiracy of which I was not a member, 
no one will contend that I am guilty. 

WAS THERE A CONSPIRACY. 

Let US' address ourselves to the first claim of the prosecution. 
In order to make any particular individuals responsible for the death 
of Senator Goebel, they must have met somewhere and formed some 
sort of a plan to bring about the death of Senator Goebel; and he 
must have been killed in pursuance of that particular plan. Otherwise, 
no guilt attaches so far as the death is concerned. Two things are 
necessary. There must have been a conspiracy to kill Senator Goebel 
by, at least, two individuals and he must have met his death in pur- 
suance of that particular conspiracy formed by them. Then, if the 
prosecution knew who killed Senator Goebel at the time this indict- 



20 

ment was returned gainst me, it was the duty, under the law, of the 
Commonwealth's Attorney, Mr. Franklin, to name those men in the 
indictment. 

There either was, or there was not, a conspiracy. If there was, it 
must have been formed some place and some one must have been 
in it. It could not have sprung into existence without human aid. 
Stones and trees do not enter into conspiracies to murder human be- 
ings. The Court says, in his instructions: "A criminal conspiracy 
is a corrupt combination of two or more persons by concerted action 
to do an unlawful act or to do a- lawful act by unlawful means." 
Then before there can be a conspiracy there must be a corrupt combi- 
nation of two or more persons. In order for there to have been a 
conspiracy to have brought about the death of Senator Goebel, two or 
more persons must have met some place and entered into an agree- 
ment looking to that end. For in order for there to have been an 
agreement there must have been some talk on the subject and the 
men must have met together. Then we arrive at the conclusion 
that the men who conspired to take the life of Senator Goebel, if there 
was a conspiracy, must have met at a place for that purpose or bad 
some communication. That is a plain proposition, gentlemen. The 
prosecution cannot dispute it. Let us see who the prosecution saya 
were the ones who entered into the alleged, conspiracy. 

Let us see. A while after Senator Goebel was killed, on the 30th 
of January, 1900, it was either claimed by the prosecution, or its 
friends, that this alleged conspiracy that resulted in the death of 
Senator Goebel had within its scope most of the leaders of the Repub- 
lican party of the State. You know, gentlemen, that charges of that 
character were made. The prosecution has formally charged some 
twenty men with being in the conspiracy to bring about jihe death of 
Senator Goebel. Now, let us take up and see who the prosecution 
has been mistaken about In their claims and in their charges. 

To begin with, old man Harlan Whittaker was arrested a few 
minutes after Senator Goebel was killed charged with having fired the 
shot. He was carried to the Franklin County Jail, surrounded by a 
mob that begged for the poor man's life, and wanted to take it with- 
out trial by either judge or jury. 

Following Harlan Whittaker's arest, the next man who was charged 
with having taken part in the murder of Senator Goebel was Silas 
Jones, a witness here for the prosecution. You reemember that Jones 
was arresteed on the 9th day of February in the city of Frankfort, by 
Detective Armstrong and others; carried down to the police headquar- 
ters and there told that he either killed Senator Goebel himself, or 
knew who did it, and if he aid not tell that they would call the mob. 
Silas Jones did not know and could not tell, and he was lodged in the 
jail at Frankfort. 



21 

Following his arrest came the arrest of a Mr. Sutton, Sheriff of 
Whitley County. The papers teemed with damning testimony against 
him. They said it was certain that he was implicated and he was 
carried from one jail to another of this State in shackels and chains, 
branded as a felon. 

Following his arrest came the arrest of Mr. Hazelipp, who was an 
officer at the Asylum at Lakeland. He was carried in chains up to 
Frankfort. Following that, on the 9th of March, warrants of arrest 
were issued for my brother, Charles Finley, William Culton, Captain 
John Davis and myself, charging us with the crime of bringing about 
the death of Senator Goebel. 

Following that came the arrest of Henry E. Youtsey, on the 27th 
of March, 1900. These were the only arrests that were made before 
people were formally accused by indictment. 

At the April term of the Franklin court, 1900, indictments were 
returned against five men who the prosecution claimed were the prin- 
cipals in this murder, namely, Harlan Whittaker, Jim Howard, Berry 
Howard, Tallow Dick Combs, and Henry E. Youtsey. They said in 
the indictment, which has been read to you, that there was a number 
of other people connected with the five named, as principals, that 
were unknown to the grand jury and unknown to the prosecution. At 
the same time indictments were returned against several people, 
charging them with being accessories before the fact to the murder of 
William Goebel. They indicted at that time Taylor, Finley, myself, 
my brother. Captain John Davis, Greene Golden. Wharton Golden and 
Bill Culton, charging us with being accessories before the fact. Fol- 
lowing these indictments, the next man charged by the prosecution 
as being implicated in the murder of William Golden, was His Honor, 
Robert Noaks, Esq. Robert Noaks was arrested over in Virginia a few 
days before I had my first trial in this Court House in July and August, 
1900. He was brought down to Frankfort, stayed in Jail a day or two, 
was brought over here and testified in my case, and after doing that, 
he was never indicted. Following that the next man charged with the 
murder of Mr. Goebel was Capt. Garnett D. Ripley. He was indicted 
at the January term of the Frankfort Circuit Court, 1901, a year after 
Senator Goebel had been killed. It took the prosecution a whole year 
to make up its mind and come to the conclusion that Captain Garnett 
D. Ripley was guilty of the murder of Senator Goebel. They arrested 
him down in Henry County, carried him up to Frankfort, and lodged 
him behind prison barsi. 

The next men charged by the prosecution with being implicated 
in the murder of Senator Goebel were Cecil, the witness, and Zack 
Steele. These men were not indicted until the January term of the 
Franklin, Circuit Court, 1902, two years after Senator Goebel had 
been killed. I believe these are all the men that have been formally 



22 

charged by the prosecution with being implicated in the murder of 
Senator Goebel. 

Now, let us see who it is that the prosecution has confessed by its 
own conduct to be not guilty of that with which they were charged. 

Silas Jones was arrested, but never indicted. Noaks was arrested 
but never indicted. Sutton was arrested, but never indicted. Haze- 
lipp was arrested, but never indicted. That makes four men who the 
prosecution has certainly confessed by their conduct to be not guilty, 
else they would have indicted them and tried them. Four men from 
this twenty leaves sixteen men who the prosecution at one time or 
another was so thoroughly convinced were guilty men, that they 
actually had them indicted by that convenient bccdy, the grand jury 
of Franklin county. Of the sixteen men, whom the prosecution has 
formally indicted, let us see who they have confessed by their own 
conduct to be not guilty of the murder of Senator Goebel. 

They have confessed by their conduct that Capt. Davis is not 
guilty of the murder of Senator Goebel, although he was indicted at the 
same term of Court at which I was indicted, and although he was on 
the train with me when we were trying to get to the mountains of 
Kentucky. He was dressed in a military garb and he had a pardon in 
his pocket from W. S. Taylor for alleged complicity in the murder 
of Senator Goebel. These things, say the prosecution against me, are 
overwhelming and damning testimony of my guilt. They are not 
so in the case of Capt. Davis. He is not guilty. The prosecution has 
confessed that by its conduct, because in August, 1900, Capt. Davis 
was given bond and sent to his home and told by the prosecution if 
they ever needed him that they would send for him. They do not 
now claim that Capt. Davis had anything to do with the murder of 
Senator Goebel. You have not heard anything of that character in 
this case. So when they charged in this indictment that Capt. John 
Davis and myself conspired together in bringing about the death of 
Mr. Goebel, that charge in your indictment, Mr. Franklin, is wrong, ac- 
cording to your own confession. 

Let us see who else. They charged Greene Golden with being 
implicated with me in the murder of Senator Goebel, they said that 
Grene Golden and myself entered into a conspiracy to bring about the 
death cf Senator Goebel. Greene Golden was not arrested for a long 
time. He was finally arrested and brought to Frankfort and lodged 
in jail and after many months of weary waiting, was finally discharged 
on bond and sent home. The prosecution has never tried him. They 
have never gotten ready to try him. They never expect to try him. 
And when they charge in this indictment that I conspired with Greene 
Golden to bring about the death of Mr. Goebel, that charge, they now 
confess by their conduct, is wrong. 

Let us see who else. They charge in this indictment that I con- 



23 

■spired with Wharton Golden and W. H. Culton to bring about the 
death of Senator Goebel. Golden and Culton are two of the leading 
star witnesses for the prosecution. Golden says he heard a great deal 
of rash talk. He saj's that he heard me use a great many expressions 
of violence, but so far as he is individually concerned, he did not know 
anything about Senator Goebel going to be killed on the 30th of Jan- 
uary. He said the only way he expected Senator Goebel to be killed 
was in a fight in the Legislative hall. So, if Golden's word can be 
relied upon, Golden certainly did not know anything about the alleged 
plan of killing Senator Goebel, and, therefore, the conclusion is that 
I could not have been in any conspiracy with Golden, if I were in one 
at all. And there is another fact which leads me to believe that the 
prosecution does not believe that Golden was in a conspiracy to 
murder Senator Goebel. You remember he told you that he was over 
here in Cincinnati selling hardware in the store of Mr. Arthur Goebel. 
I do not for a minute believe that if Arthur Goebel believed that 
Golden was guilty of complicity in the murder of his brother 
that Mr. Goebel would have the remotest connection with Wharton 
Golden, one way or the other. I am confident he would not do it. 
And there is another thing about Culton which leads me to believe 
that the prosecution does not believe him to be guilty. I am not pass- 
ing on the guilt or innocence of Culton. I have nothing to do with 
that. Culton says he is not guilty. He is a witness for the prosecu- 
tion and he says he heard a great many threats and statements and 
heard a great deal of wild talk, and that he was the chosen man to 
go up in the House of Representatives and raise a fight and kill off 
enough Democrats to make a Republican majority and all that, but he 
further tells you that he was the worst surprised man in the whole 
city of Frankfort when he heard of Senator Goebel being shot. He 
further tells you that he never did advise with me in his life concern- 
ing the death of Senator Goebel, that he never heard me use an ex- 
pression about it one way or the other. He says he heard me use 
wild talk, but not about killing Senator Goebel. That is the testi- 
mony in this case and it will net be denied. And if the people for the 
prosecution believe that Culton was a member of the conspiracy to 
kill Senator Goebel, I cannot think that they would have him over at 
the Wellington Hotel, the best hotel in this town, and be thrown in 
daily companionship with him. It is your duty, Mr. Franklin, to pros- 
ecute the guilty and not to associate with them in ideal fellowship 
and make out of them boon companions. 

Culton says he is not swearing for immunity. Culton says he 
is not getting anything for his testimony. If Culton is not swearing 
for immunity, and is not getting anything for his testimony, the pros- 
ecution surely feels that he is not guilty, because if he is not swearing 
for immunity nor to get money, if he is guilty, the prosecution would 



24 

certainly have brought him to trial. But you can put Golden and 
Culton down in whatever category you want to; they both say that they 
were not in any conspiracy with me to bring about the death of Mr. 
Goebel. Golden said he didn't know anything about Goebel going to 
be killed from the office of the Secretary of State, and that he had no 
knowledge of such a plan, and Culton tells you that he was the most 
surprised man in Frankfort when he heard it, and he was never in 
any plot or plan to bring about the death of Mr. Goebel. Then, if the 
testimony of Golden and Culton can be relied upon, certainly I was 
not in any conspiracy with them to bring about the death of Mr. Goe- 
bel; because they say so, and they are star witnesses for the prosecu- 
tion, therefore, when you charge in your indictment, Mr Franklin, 
that I conspired with Golden and Culton to bring about the death of 
Mr. Goebel, that much more of your indictment must be wrong. 

Let us see who else. They charge in this indictment that I was 
in a conspiracy with Frank Cecil to bring about the death of Senator 
Goebel. They put Cecil upon the witness stand and Cecil says that 
so far as he is individually concerned, he had not the slightest idea 
that Senator Goebel was going to be killed, except the expression he 
says that he heard me make the night before Goebel was killed. He 
says, so far as he was concerned, he was in no plot or plan to kill Sen- 
ator Goebel. He said he did not know anything about Mr. Goebel's 
going to be killed from the office of the Secretary of State. He said 
when I told him on the night of the 29th of January that there was a 
man coming down to kill Goebel the next day, that he never asked me 
who it was or anything about it. But I will get to that conversation 
later on. He said he never asked me anything about it; never inquired 
about it; didn't care anything about it. He says when I told him 
there was a man across the hall who wanted to kill Mr. Goebel a few 
days ago, and that I would not let him do it, that he did not inquire 
what the name of the man was; that he did not know anything about 
it and cared less. Then if Cecil can be relied upon, so far as Cecil is 
concerned, he and myself did not have anything to do with the mur- 
der of Mr. Goebel. Cecil said that he was an innocent man. Then 
when you charge me in this indictment with being in a consijiracy to 
bring about the death of Mr. Goebel, with Frank Cecil, if Cecil can be- 
believed, that much more of your indictment is wrong. 

Now, let us see who else. They charge in this indictment that I 
was in a conspiracy with poor old Harlan Whittaker to bring about the 
death of Senator Goebel. That is the charge in this indictment. 
Whittaker was turned loose on bond away back in August, 1900, and 
has been with his wife and children ever since, and the prosecution 
now says old man Whittaker had nothing to do with the killing of Mr. 
Goebel. Terms of court after terms of court have passed in this 
court-house, and the case of Harlan Whittaker has never been called 



25 

for trial. The prosecution has never gotten ready to try old man 
Whittaker. Whittaker has never prepared for trial. They have given 
him bond and told him to go home, and, if their present theory is to 
be relied upon, old man Whittaker had nothing to do with the killing 
of Mr. Goebel. Therefore, the conclusion is inevitable that I could not 
have conspired with him to bring about the death of Mr. Goebel. 

Let us see who else. Capt. Garnett D. Ripley has been indicted 
as being an accessory before the fact to the murder of Senator Goebel. 
They charge that he and I were implicated in the murder of Senator 
Goebel. As I said a few minutes ago, it took the prosecution a whole 
year to find out that Capt. Garnett D. Ripley was guilty. They did 
not indict him until the January term of the Franklin Circuit Court, 
1901. That was nearly a whole year after Senator Goebel had been 
killed, and nearly a whole year since they had charged me with being 
implicated in the murder of Senator Goebel. In other words, the pros- 
ecution had a whole year to investigate the guilt of Capt. Garnett D. 
Ripley and after a thorough investigation they came to the conclusion 
that he was guilty and they arrested him down in Henry county and 
carried him up to the Franklin county jail, followed by his broken 
hearted wife and terrified little daughter, and loged him behind the 
bars. His trial came up in April of the same year and the jury in 
that case said, "We, the jury agree and find the defendent not guilty," 
and they sent him home. Therefore, when they charged in this indict- 
ment, that I was in a conspiracy with Capt. Garnett D. Ripley to bring 
about the death of Senator Goebel, that much more of their indict- 
ment must be wrong. 

Let us see who else. There was Berry Howard, whom they charged 
in this indictment, that I conspired with to bring about the death 
of Senator Goebel. Berry Howard was not arrested for quite a long 
time. He was finally arrested and lodged in jail in Frankfort. He 
was put on trial for his life, and Mr. Franklin, before the jury, begged 
for his life. The jury acquitted Berry Howard and sent him home. 
Therefore, I could not have been in any conspiracy to kill Senator 
Goebel with Berry Howard, because the jury in that case said that he 
was innocent of the charge against him, and, therefore, when you 
charge us with joint complicity in the murder of Mr. Goebel, that 
much more of your indictment, Mr. Franklin, must be wrong. 

Let us see who else. Here is Dick Combs. They charged in this 
indictment that Dick Combs and myself were in a conspiracy to brin-g 
about the death of Senator Geobel. Dick Combs was finally lodged in 
jail at Fi-ankfort. Away back in August, 1900, he was given bond and 
sent home by Mr. Franklin, and if their present theory can now be 
relied upon, Dick Combs had nothing to do with the murder of 
Senator Goebel. Youtsey told Mr. Arthur Goebel that it was Dick 
Combs that he was dealing with in trying to kill his brother. Upon 



26 

■that word of Youtsey, believing wliat he said. Mr. Goebel certainly 
wanted to prosecute the guilty and Dick Combs was arrested, but 
Youtsey says: "I was mistaken about that. Hocker?mith was the 
man. I am responsible for Dick Combs' indictment and arrest. I told 
them it was Dick Combs but it turned out to be Hockersmith." So, 
when they charged in the indictment here that Dick Combs and my- 
self were in a conspiracy to bring about the death of Senator Goebel, 
that much more of their indictment is wrong. 

Now, let us see who the prosecution, has confessed by its conduct, 
that I was in no conspiracy with. I was in no conspiracy with Silas 
Jones, none with Sutton, none with Noaks, none with Heazlipp; 
•because they were never indicted. I was in none with Capt. 
Davis, none with Berry Howard, none with Greene Golden, none 
with Wharton Golden and Bill Culton, if they can be believed, none 
with Capt. Garnett D Ripley, none with Dick Combs. Then let us 
see who I was in a conspiracy with, if I was in a conspiracy with any- 
body. Taking these men from the list, whom else do we have? They 
■say that Taylor conspired with Jim Howard and Henry Youtsey, and 
these other men to bring about the death of Senator Goebel. I am 
here to say to you that I do not know anything about that. Taylor 
may have done it and he may not have done it. I am not here to an- 
swer for the sins of Governor Taylor, if he has any sins. He can do 
that for himself. I don't know whom he conspired with,, whether any- 
body, but, so far as I am individually concerned, I expect to show you 
that I did not conspire with anybody. They charge in this indictment 
here that I procured iive men to shoot and murder Senator Goebel, 
and they said at that time that there were unknown men acting with 
these men, but that bugaboo of an unknown quantity has been cast 
into the mist. That bugaboo of an unknown man whom the country 
was taught to, believe must have been some mountain man, who came 
down with that mountain crowd, has been cast away; because, if the 
prosecution can be relied upon, no man who came in that mountain 
crowd had naught to do with the firing of the fatal shots that resulted 
in the death of Senator Goebel. None were present, aiding, or shelter- 
ing these who did fire it. But five men have been indicted as prin- 
cipals: Harlan Whittaker, who lives down in Butler county. Tallow 
Dick Combs, who had nothing to do with the mountain crowd and did 
not come with it. Henry E. Youtsey, who lived up here in the North- 
ern part of this State in the county of Campbell, and who says he had 
nothing to do with the mountain crowd, and James Howard, who 
did not come with the mountain crowd, and had nothing to do with it, 
if the position of the prosecution can be relied up; because they 
say that he came to Frankfort on the very day that Senator Goebel 
was killed, within less than an hour of the murder.' The mountain 
crowd came five days before. But for a long time tais country was 



taught to believe that the mountain crowd killed Senator Goebel, and 
that I brought the mountain crowd to Frankfort, and that, therefore,. 
I am responsible for what the mountain crowd did; because they said 
that the unknown men in the indictment, certainly embraced some of 
the mountain crowd. But that ghost of an unknown man, if the prose- 
cution can be relied upon, has been taken out of the case; for, they 
now say there was no unknown man about it. They say now that the 
unknown man had nothing to do with it; that he was, and is, a mere Will 
o' the Wisp, without either a local habitation or a name. If they can 
be relied upon it was Jim Howard and Henry Youtsey, who fired the 
fatal shot that resulted in the death of Senator Goebel, and nobody 
else was about, or had anything to do with it, because ioutsey says 
he said to Howard: "Do you want to see the Governor," and Howard 
said to Youtsey: "I don't want to see anybody," and Youtsey says 
there was nobody in the hallway, and Youtsey said to Howard: "If 
you see anybody coming, step under the stairwaj'." Then nobody was 
in, or about, the office of the Secretary of State, or the hallway, and no- 
body had anything to do with the killing of Mr. Goebel except Jim 
Howard and Youtsey, if the position of the prosecution can now be re- 
lied upon, and, therefore, -all this bugaboo about the mountain crowd, 
or any of them killing Senator Goebel, vanishes into vapor; there- 
fore, none of this conduct on the part of the mountain crowd, none of 
this wild speech on the part of the mountain crowd, resulted in the 
death of Senator Goebel; because no man who came with that moun- 
tain crowd has ever been accused by the prosecution of firing the 
fatal shot, or being present, aiding and abetting those who did fire 
it. Another distinct and independent set of men have been indicted 
as hertofore referred to, and all of this abuse of the mountaineers 
about them wearing cottonade pants and buckeye hats, and all this 
alleged shooting and all this alleged threatening speech on their part, 
have been dragged into this case for a purpose, and that purpose is, to 
prejudice you against me; because I did bring the mountain crowd to 
Frankfort, and I will take up later and explain to you gentlemen my 
motives for bringing that mountain crowd. But if the prosecution can 
now be relied upon, no meml.^er of that mountain crowd fired the fatal 
shot, or was present aiding or abetting those who did fire the fatal 
shot that resulted in the death of Senator Goebel, therefore, if they 
constituted a part of the alleged conspiracy to murder Mr. Goebel as 
is maintained by the prosecution, that conspiracy resulted in nothing, 
because a different set of men, living in other portions of the State 
have been indicted, charged with firing the fatal shot. 

But I am wandering just a bit. I say they have charged me with 
procuring Harlan Whittaker, Dick Combs, Henry E. Youtsey, Berry 
Howard and Jim Howard to fire the fatal shot that resulted in the 
death of Senator Goebel, none of whom came with the mountain 



28 

crowd. That is what they charge me with. If I did procure those 
men to shoot Senator Goebel, I am guilty. If I did not procure those 
men to kill Senator Goebel, then I am not guilty, although the moun- 
tain crowd came to Frankfort, and although the militia was called 
out, and although there was a great deal of excited speech and a 
great deal of reckless talk done at Frankfort, during those stormy 
times. I say if I procured Jim Howard, Henry Youtsey, Dick Combs, 
Harlan Whittaker or Berry Howard to shoot or kill Senator Goebel, 
then I am guilty, whether the mountain crowd came to Frankfort or 
not; but if I did not procure Jim Howard, Henry Youtsey, Dick Combs 
or Harlan Whittaker or Berry Howard to shoot or kill Senator Goebel, 
then I could not be guilty, although the mountain crowd did come to 
Frankfort, and although the militia was called out. I think that is 
clear. 

Now, let us see: Did I procure Dick Combs to shoot and murder 
Mr. Goebel? What is the testimony in this case? Dr. Prewitt told 
you that Dick Combs was in the Adjutant General's office when the 
fatal shot was fired. The testimony in this case is, that I never laid 
eyes on Dick Combs until after Dick Combs was arrested and lodged 
in the Franklin county jail charged with this crime, the same as my- 
self. The testimony is that I never saw Dick Combs, had no communi- 
cation with him, had nothing to do with him, and did not know him 
until after he was lodged in jail, after I had been lodged in jail. There- 
fore, the conclusion is inevitable that I did not conspire with, aid, 
counsel, advise or procure Dick Combs to shoot and murder Senator 
Goebel. There can be no doubt about that, and when they charge in 
this indictment that I procured Dick Combs to shoot and murder Sena- 
tor Goebel, you know, and the whole country knows, that that much 
more of their indictment is wrong; because I did not procure Dick 
Combs to shoot and murder Senator Goebel, if the testimony for the 
prosecution in this case can be relied upon. 

Now, let us see who else: They charge in this indictment that 
I procured old man Harlan Whittaker to shoot and murder Senator 
Goebel. That is charged in this indictment, but the testimony is, that 
I never laid eyes on old man Harlan Whitaker until after he was 
arrested and I was arrested, and until we were carried to the Louis- 
ville jail for safekeeping after Senator Goebel had been shot. That 
is the testimony in this- case. There is nothing in the whole record 
to contradict it. So if the testimony can be relied upon, I certainly 
did not procure Harlan Whittaker to shoot and murder Senator 
Goebel. And besides that the prosecution now says that Harlan Whit- 
taker had nothing to do with the killing of Goeuei 

Then they charge me in this indictment with procuring old man 
Berry Howard to murder Senator Goebel. That is what they charge 
me with and that is what you gentlemen are trying me for. That is 



29 

the thing upon which you are asked to talce from me my life by these 
able gentlemen in their excited arguments. What is the testimony 
in this case? The testimony in this case is; that I had scarcely met 
Berry Howard before Senator Goebel was killed; that I had had no 
communication with him; that I had had no conference with him; that 
I did not procure him to do anything, and besides that, Berry How- 
ard has been acquitted of the charge of having fired the shot, or of 
being present.aiding, or abetting those who did fire the fatal shot that 
resulted in the death of Senator Goebel. Then three out of the five 
named persons I could not be guilty with. I was not guilty with 
Tallow Dick Combs. I did not know Tallow Dick Combs, and Tal- 
low Dick Combs has been turned loose and . has had his liberty for 
nearly three years. I could not be guilty with old man Harlan Whit- 
aker, I did not know him, and he has been given his liberty for near- 
ly three years. I could not have been guilty with Berry Howard, be- 
cause Berry Howard has been acquitted by a jury of his country. 
Then if I am guilty at all, I must be guilty in procuring either Jim 
Howard or Henry E. Youtsey to shoot and murder Senator Goebel. I 
wouldn't be guilty with these other men. I could not be guilty with 
Berry Howard, I courd not be guilty with Tallow Dick Combs, I could 
not be guilty with Harlan Whittaker. Then I repeat, if I am sruilty 
at all, I must be guilty of procuring either Jim Howard or Henry E. 
Youtsey to fire the fatal shot that resulted in the death of Senator 
Goebel. There can be no escape from that. 

Now, did I procure Jim Howard to fire the fatal shot that resulted 
in the death of Senator Goebel? These men in their arguments 
here stated that Jim Howard was the man behind the gun; that Jim 
Howard was the man who pulled the trigger and fired the fatal shot. 
Did I procure Jim Howard to fire that fatal shot that resulted in the 
death of Senator Goebel? If I did, I am guilty. I did not ,then 
so far as Jim Howard is concerned, I am not guilty. 

What is the testimony in this case? Think over it. We have 
gone through this trial for some four weeks. Think over the tes- 
timony that has been introducea on the witness stand in this case 
and point to a single witness on the part of the prosecution or the 
defense that said I ever even knew Jim Howard at the time Sen- 
ator Goebel was shot on the 30th of January, or prior thereto.. If 
you will show me a witness in the whole case who has sworn from 
this witness stand that I even knew Jim Howard, I will agree right 
now that you gentlemen shall bring in a verdict of guilty. Show it, 
and bring in your verdict. There is not a man in all the record of 
this case, from the first witness to the last, who has testified that 
I even knew Jim Howard on the 30th of January, 1900. Point it out, 
Mr. Franklin, and then ask a verdict of guilty at the hands of the 
Jury; point it out, and I will agree that you find me guilty. If the 



30 

testimony in this case can be relied upon, I did not know Jina How- 
ard at the time Senator Goebel was killed. If the testimony in this- 
case can, he believed, I never had any communication with Jim How- 
ard before Senator Goebel was killed. Howard tells you from the 
witness stand in this case that he did not know me at the time Sen- 
ator Goebel was killed, and never met me until after we had both 
been transferred to LiOuisville after our first trials for safekeeping. 
I testified to that fact myself, and since Col. Campbell has said that 
I am one of the ablest of the star witnesses on the part of prosecution, 
certainly I have a right to refer to my own testimony. Mr. Howard 
says he never saw me until he met me at Louisville after he had been 
convicted and after I had had a trial. I testified to the same thing, 
and there is no conflicting proof. There is not a syllable of proof 
on the part of the prosecution to show anything to the contrary. Then, 
so far as Jim Howard is concerned, I certainly did not conspire with 
Jim Howard to bring about the death of Senator Goebel, if the tes- 
timony in this case can be believed or relied upon. Is not that 
true? The only testimony in the whole of this record which would 
tend to show, even by indirection, that I had anything to do with 
Jim Howard, is the testimonj^ of Frank Cecil, and he says he had 
a talk with me on the 29th of January in my office; that he casually 
dropped in my office on that night and that I said to him that a man 
was coming to Frankfort tomorrow to kill Senator Goebel. Frank 
Cecil was asked if he knew that Jim Howard was going to be in 
Frankfort, and he said he did not. So taking Cecil's statement for 
it. I did not know Howard was going to be in Frankfort. I did not 
know anything about Jim Howard going to fire the fatal shot that 
killed Senator Goebel. Even Youtsey says that so far as he 
knew, I did not know Jim Howard, and I had had no connection with 
Jim Howard. Youtsey's testimony is that I agreed to be out of my 
office. He don't say that I agreed to be out of my office for the 
purpose of Jim Howard killing Goebel; not a bit of it. He don't say 
that I had any knowledge that Taylor had written to Jim Howard, 
and that Jim Howard was going to be in Frankfort. Not a bit of it. 
Youtsey never said anything about that. Then if the testimony of 
the prosecution can be believed, if the testimony in this case is going 
to have any credence, I did not know Jim Howard; I had no commu- 
nication with Jim Howard until after Senator Goebel had been killed. 
Then, gentlemen, I could not be guilty, so far as the proof in this 
case is concerned, of conspiring with Jim Howard to bring about the 
death of Senator Goebel, because the testimony is, that I did not know 
him; the testimony is, that I had no communication with him, and 
had nothing to do with him. Cecil said that he did not know that 
Jim Howard was going to be in Frankfort on the day that Senator 
Goebel was going to be killed. 



31 

You cannot go outside of the record and say "there is no testi- 
mony showing Powers knew Jim Howard ; there is no testimony show- 
ing he had any communication with Jim Howard, but we believe 
that he did." Oh, no, men, you cannot do that. You have sworn 
that you would not do that. You have sworn that you would try 
this case according to the law and the testimony. You have sworn 
that you would not supply any o*f the testimony either for the Com- 
monwealth or for the defense. Then you cannot say 'it is more 
than likely true that you did know Jim Howard and we are going to 
believe it anyway.' You cannot do that, and you are not going to do 
that. If you are going to do that, this trial is a farce; if you are going 
to do that, there was no necessity for introducing any testimony 
in this case. If you are going to supply the testimony for the prose- 
cution, let us do away with the formalities of a trial and let you set- 
tle it all. Read the indictment and find me guilty. You have sworn 
that you would try this case from the law and from the testimony. 

All that Cecil's testimony could mean, if it be true, is that I had 
knowledge that Senator Goebel was going to be killed. I say, if true. So if 
every sentence and syllable he uttered is absolutely true it could not 
mean any more than that I had knowledge that Mr. Goebel was to be 
killed, and that not is enough. The court has not told you in these instruc- 
tions that if I had knowledge that Mr. Goebel was to be killed that you 
should find me guilty. No! That has never been the law in this 
country. Mere knowledge that a man is going to be killed does not 
connect the man who has the knowledge. The court has not said, 
if I had knowledge of the matter, you shold find me guilty; but on 
the contrary he says if I advised, counseled or procured some one 
to shoot Senator Goebel, in that event I am guilty. Suppose you should 
be down here on the streets of Georgetown and a man should pass 
you hastily and say to you, 'I propose to shoot to death that man down , 
ou the street corner,' and he goes and shoots him to death; you were 
down there and you heard what he said and you knew he was going' 
to do it, you had knowledge of it; but would anybody contend that 
you were guilty simply because you had knowledge that the man was 
going to be shot down in the streets of Georgetown? No. That 
would make all eye-witnesses to the crime participants in it. Isn't 
that true? That has never been the law in this country — it never will 
be. And taking everything that Cecil has said as true it does not 
show any connection between Jim Howard and myself. But let me 
repeat again that Cecil's story is a base fabrication, sworn to for 
so much immunity. 

Then, if the testimony can be relied upon, I was in no conspiracy 
with Jim Howard to bring about the death of Senator Goebel. If 
every word that Cecil testified to be true, and it is not true, and may 
the God in heaven strike me dead this minute if I said to him: "Thire 



82 

is a man coming to-morrow to kill Goebel,' or that I tried to get him 
to kill Mr. Goebel; but supposing every word that Cecil testified to 
was true, it makes no connection between me and the assassi- 
nation of Mr. Goebel, or me and James B.. Howard. Cecil said he did 
not know Howard was coming to Frankfort, and that all I said to 
him about the matter was that there was a man coming to-morrow and 
if he comes he will certainly kill Goebel, and Cecil said that I had 
my murderous talk to him when I was alone; that his pious soul was 
very much terrified when, he says, I expressed to him a desire for 
blood; that his whole nature rebelled against it and revolted at it. 
He said that I must have realized that I had made a mistake in ap- 
proaching him on such a subject; for he says, I said to him, to never 
mention what I had said to him; although he has me within the next 
five or ten minutes getting another man to approach him on the 
same subject and asking him what he (Cecil) 'thought about what 
Powers had said to him,' and offering him $2,500 to kill Mr. Goebel. 
He says that this occurred in ten minutes after I had told him that 
there was a man coming to Frankfort tomorrow to kill Goebel. If 
there was a man coming to Frankfort on the following day to kill 
Goebel, why should I have Cecil offered $2,500 for doing the work? 
Answer me that, gentlemen. And if Cecil and others would waylay 
and rob a man of $2,100, don't you believe that he would kill a man 
for $2,500, if it had been offered him? If he would detain a woman 
against her will for the purpose of having carnal knowledge with her, 
what crime would he not commit? As God is m.y judge I never said 
to Cecil niiat he says I did. May God in heaven paralyze my speech, 
if such >>e true. The law says that a man who is base enough to 
enter into a conspiracy to murder his fellow-man, is infamous enough 
to swear himself out if he can, by swearing others in. The law 
says that you cannot believe what he says unless his testimony is 
corroborated. Cecil's testimony is not corroborated, but it is con- 
tradicted. If I had wanted to have testified falsely, I would have 
denied Cecil's being at my office at all that night. I knew that it 
was beyond the power of the prosecution to have contradicted me 
in that except by Cecil's own testimony. But if all that Cecil tes- 
tified to be true, which it is not, it does not even remotely connect 
Jim Howard and myself with the murder of Mr. Goebel. 

Then four of the five men named as principals, that you, 
Mr. Franklin, charge me with procuring to shoot and murder 
Senator Goebel, if the testimony can be relied upon, I cer- 
tainly did not procure. I did not know Disk Combs; I did 
not know Harlan Whittaker; I did not know Jim Howard; and 
Berry Howard has been acquitted. Then four of the five men that 
I am charged in this indictment with procuring to shoot and mur- 
der Senator Goebel, I did not know and had no connection with, If 



33 

the testimony of the prosecution can be relied upon and if it can 
be believed. I am not guilty with any unknown man, because they 
have eliminated the unknown man from this case. The unknown 
man has nothing to do with it. Then if I am guilty at all of pro- 
curing anybody to shoot and murder Mr. Goebel, I must be guilty of 
procuring Henry E. Youtsey to shoot and murder him. I am not 
guilty as to the other four named principals in this case. I am guilty 
with no unknown man because there is no unknown man, and if I 
am guilty at all, I must be guilty of procuring Henry E. Youtsey to 
shoot Senator Goebel. Is not that true, men? 

Now, am I guilty with Henry E. Youtsey? As I said a moment 
ago, if I am guilty of procuring anybody to murder Senator Goebel 
it must be Henry E. Youtsey, and what does the testimony show as 
to that particular man? "We must rely upon the testimony, and 
what is the testimony in this case? The testimony both upon the 
side of the prosecution and upon the side of the defense, is that I 
never met Henry E. Youtsey until the first day of January, 1900, just 
thirty days before Senator Goebel was shot and killed. If the tes- 
timony for the prosecution in this case can be relied upon, Youtsey 
never spoke to me or my brother relative to the shooting of Senator 
Goebel until the 29th day of January, one day. before Senator Goebel 
came to his death. That is the testimony. You gentlemen no 
doubt have met with men with whom you have had an intimate ac- 
quaintance. You no doubt have met with men whom you could trust. 
You no doubt have met men you would not trust, but I want to ask you 
if you ever met a man in all your life and within thirty days after- 
ward, without knowing anything further of him (and that is the tes- 
timony in this case so far as Youtsey and myself are concerned) with- 
out having any intimate relationship with him, I want to ask you if 
you ever took such a man into your bosom and revealed to him the 
secrets of your heart? Did you ever do it, Mr. Layson? I am sure 
you never did. Did you ever taken a man whom you just happened to 
meet aside within thirty days afterward and reveal to him your plans 
for money-mdking and the property you expected to acquire and the 
marital relationships that you desired to see your sons and daugh- 
ters enter into? Dfd you ever do it? I can say for you that you 
never did. Did you ever become a candidate for any office elective by 
the voters' of a county, district or State? And if you ever did, did you 
ever take a casual voter aside and reveal to him the exact plans you 
expected to adopt to win the race, and how you would defeat your op- 
ponents, A, B and C, but that they would not know anything about it 
until they were defeated? Did you ever commit any crime in your life? 
If you ever did, I want to ask you if you ever took some unknown man 
into your bosom and asked him to go with you to help you commit- 
that crime? 



34 

(Court here adjourned until tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock.) 

Georgetown, Ky., Aug. 29, 1903. 

Court met pursuant to adjournment, and Mr. Powers continued 
his argument as follows: 

Gentlemen: When the court adjourned last night we were dis- 
cussing Youtsey, but I want to go back and say one word more with 
reference to Howard before I take up the Youtsey end of it. 

You will remember that Col. Campbell on yesterday afternoon 
asked the defense why it was that they did not call to the witness 
stand and introduce Mr. Paynter and why they did not call and in- 
troduce J. B. Matthews. He said that those points of Cecil's tes- 
timony were corroborated by the fact that we had it in our power 
to produce these men, and that we failed to do it. Let us look at 
that a minute, gentlemen. Col Campbell has claimed that I am one 
of the chief star witnesses for the prosecution. If I am, I certainly 
have not tried to shield myself, but I have told the whole truth. There 
can be no other inference drawn. Again, Cecil is one of the men 
whose testimony this honorable court has told you could not be be- 
lieved unless corroborated by other testimony. The court has not 
told you that you cannot believe my testimony unless it is corrob- 
orated by other testimony. So then it was incumbent upon the 
prosecution to introduce Mr. Paynter on this witness stand and cor- 
roborate the testimony of Cecil before it is worthy of belief, if the 
court has given the proper instructions to his jury. You remember 
yesterday afternoon that Col. Campbell said that Paynter was one of 
the conspirators in this case, and said in substance that if he ever 
got down in this neck of the woods, he would be called upon to 
stand trial for his alleged participation in this crime. How can 
you expect us to get witnesses here to testify in behalf of the de- 
fendant, when they are threatened with prosecutioi? by the repre- 
sentatives of the Commonwealth, if they put in an appearance? 
These gentlemen well know that, so far as the defendant is con- 
cerned, he used his utmost power in trying to get Paynter to the 
witness stand in this case. They well know that interrogatories 
were prepared for Mr. Paynter to be sent to the State of Kansas, and 
that, after he was found to be in Kentucky, a subpoena was Issued 
for Mr. Paynter to appear on the witness stand and testify for the 
defense. We failed to get him, but we are not responsible for it and 
not to blame, and even if we had got him here we could not have 
contradicted Cecil in the damaging part of his alleged conversation 
with me, if Cecil can be believed, because Cecil said that Paynter was 
not present at that time and that I never said anything about killing 
Goebel or doing other violence in Paynter's presence; that all he 
knew about Paynter was that Paynter was in my oflBce on the night 
of the 29th, when Cecil says he came there. 



35 

And they say to us, " Why didn't you call J. B. Matthews?" Ce- 
cil says he had a talk with J. B. Matthews after he left your office and 
had the talk with you, they say why don't you call J. B. Matthews? 
They assert that he is my confidential man, my detective. 
If Mrs. J. B. Matthews can be believed he was also the detective for 
the prosecution in this case. If Mr. Franklin can be relied upon he 
was also a detective for the prosecution in this case, for don't you 
remember that Mr. Franklin put to R. N. Miller the question: "Did 
you not say to J. B. Matthews up at Indianpolis some time ago that 
you had a talk with R. N. Miller and that Miller said that J. L. Pow- 
ers seemed to be intimate with Henry Youtsey?" You remember 
that question and you remmber that Mr. Franklin was holding in his 
hand a large volume of written statements that must have been pre- 
pared by J. B. Matthews. Miller says he did not say it; but, judging 
from all appearances and the testimony in the case, J. B. Matthews 
must have been the confidential man and the detective for the 
prosecution. Again, as I say, why the necessity of the defense 
calling J. B. Matthews, so far as the Cecil end of it is concerned? 
The law says you cannot believe anything Cecil says, unless 
the testimony is corroborated by others. That is the law, 
and there is no doubt about that. Then if that be true, and it is 
true, why is it that the prosecution did not call Matthews to the 
witness stand and show by him, if true, that he did on the Monday 
night before Goebel was killed have a conversation with Cecil in the 
reception room between the private office of the Secretary of State 
and the Governor's office? 

Now, let us continue the Youtsey end of it. I said to you last 
night that I was indicted and charged with procuring five men to 
shoot and murder Senator Goebel: Harlan Whittaker, Dick Combs, 
Henry E. Youtsey, Jim Howard, Berry Howard. I showed you last 
night that I did not know Harlan Whittaker. I showed you last 
night that I did not know Dick Combs, and that I did not know Jim. 
Howard, and that Berry Howard had been acquitted. Then if I am 
guilty at all, I must have procured Henry E. Youtsey to shoot and kill 
Senator Goebel. I said to you further that the testimony in this case 
shows that I only knew Henry E. Youtsey about a month before 
Senator Goebel was killed. The testimony is that I was sworn in 
before him as a notary public, took the oath of office as Secretary of 
State; that he was the only notary public' in the building, and that I 
had a casual speaking acquaintance with him after that time until 
the 27th day of January, 1900. You know they claim that I was im- 
plicated in getting Youtsey to fire the shot from my office, and you 
know I asked you last night that if you wanted to kill some of your 
neighbors, if you wanted to stoop to the dastardly method of assassi- 
nation in order to get rid of them, "would you come down in some 



36 

of these stores and pick up a clerk with whom you have come in con- 
tact since you have been standing on this jury and take him inside 
and ask him to go into a conspiracy with you and ask him to 
shoot and murder your neighbor? You remember I asked you this 
question, would you take that clerk out to your home and put him 
down by your parlor window, or by the side of the window of your 
office, if you had an office in Georgetown, and instruct him to shoot 
the man as he passed by j^our door? Why, gentlemen, such con- 
duct as that would be the act of an idiot, the deed of a lunatic. You 
would not do that; there is no question about that. Would I? If you 
wanted to have your neighbor assassinated, you certainly would not 
want it to be found out on you. Isn't that true? And if you had him 
shot from the windows of your office or home, would you not be pub- 
lishing to the world the very thing that you most desired to keep secret? 
If you wanted your neighbor killed, your home would be the last place 
on earth that you would select as the place whence the fatal shot 
should be fired. You know that, and if you wanted your neighbor 
killed, the clerk in the store would the last man on earth you would 
go to if you were hunting a man to commit murder. Is not that 
true? If you wanted your neighbor killed would not you go to some 
man you had seen trusted and tried, some man with whom you could 
risk your very life and say: "This man is interfering with my busi- 
ness interests." And wouldn't your home or your office be the last 
place on earth from which you would have the fatal shot fired? Is 
not that tnie, men? And if I had wanted Senator Goebel killed, or 
had had any interest in the killing of Mr. Gtoebel, do you think I 
ViTould go to an unknown man like Henry E. Youtsey, a man of whom 
I knew absolutely nothing — nothing of his family, nothing of his 
trustworthiness, nothing of him — and agree with him that he could 
fire the fatal shot from my office with three other unknown men that 
I had not known up to that time, namely, Jim Howard, Harlan Whit- 
taker and Dick Combs? If I had wanted Senator Goebel killed, 
would not I have gone to some man who had stood by me in the 
past, some man I knew I could rely upon, some man I had seen 
trusted and tried? And if I had wanted him killed would not my 
office have been the last place on earth from which I v.ould agree that 
the fatal shot should be fired? Would not I have known that I was 
advertising to the world the very thing that I would have desired to 
keep a secret? Apply cortimon sense to this mattetr. The best 
sort of sense a man ever had is common sense. If Youtsey can be 
believed, if his testimony can be relied upon, he never spoke to me 
about the killing of Senator Goebel until the 29th of January, 1900, 
one day before Senator Goebel came to his death. That is the tes- 
timony of Henry E. Youtsey. That is the testimony of the Com- 
monwealth witnesses. I say if the testimony of -he Commonwealth 



37 

can be relied upon, Henry Youtsey never spoke to myself or my brother 
concerning the death of Senator Goebel until one day before Senator 
Goebel was killed. If the testimony of Henry E. Youtsey can be 
relied upon, I did not know anything about his plans to kill Senator 
Goebel with Dr. Johnson, or with Hockersmith. I did not know any- 
thing about Youtsey wanting to get into my oflace, or that he had a 
slick scheme to kill Goebel from my office, because Culton tells you he 
never did tell me anything about that. The testimony is, that Youtsey 
never told me anything about his murderous plots prior to January 
29th. I did not knaw that he was trying to get $300.00 from Walter 
Day to kill Senator Goebel. There is no testimony in this record show- 
ing a thing of that character, and such a thing never did exist. Noth- 
ing, so far as proof in this case is concerned, reveals that I knew any- 
thing about Youtsey wanting to get Mastin's gun, and about Youtsey 
ordering cartridges from Cincinnati to kill Mr. Goebel with, and about 
his getting Hockersmith or Dr. Johnson in my office. 

I know nothing about Youtsey and Johnson, and Youtsey and 
Hockersmith, at any time, searching the Executive building over to 
find a suitable place from which to fire the shot. I knew nothing about 
his and Johnson's plan for the man who did fire the fatal shot to run 
through the basement. I knew nothing about his dreaming that he 
saw some of the mountain men kill Goebel; nothing about his and 
Johnson's nitroglycerine scheme to kill Goebel in his room in the 
Capital Hotel; nothing about him saying to Capt. Ricketts that his 
(Youtsey's) job depended on Goebel's death; nothing about his making 
a proposition to the mountain men to Mil Goebel; I knew nothing 
about his alleged talk with Taylor about Goebel's death. 

Remember, gentlemen, that I knew none of these things, and that 
during these times I was in the mountains of Kentucky. I left Frank- 
fort on the 12th of January and returned the 17th, left on the 20th and 
did not get back until the 25th. If the testimony for the Commonwealth 
can be relied upon, I did not know any of these things and I did not 
know anything about the proposed plan to kill Senator Goebel until the 
29th of January, 1900, if their own testimony can be believed. Then 
there is no necessity to go back to times prior to the 29th of January in 
this discussion. Youtsey said I did not knov/, and that my brother did 
not know anything prior to that time. He says that on the morning 
of the 29th, the Monday before Mr. Goebel was killed, on Tuesday, that 
he went into my private office; that he found my brother sitting there 
at a desk, and he said to my brother — (he says he had never met 
my brother, never had any introduction to him. That is his testi- 
mony) — Youtsey said he went up to my brother and said to him: "See 
here, I want a key to your brother's office, with which to put some 
negroes in there to kill Senator Goebel." What do you think of this 
story? What do you think of Youtsey going to my brother, an un- 



38 

known man, and asking for a key to his brother's office for the pur- 
pose of committing murder from there? What do you think of it, men? 
He says my brother — I presume for the purpose of having some one 
see him give Youtsey the key to my office — got up and walked out into 
the hallway of the Executive building, a convenient place for Wharton 
Golden to see the deliverance of the key by my brother to Henry E. 
Youtsey. What do you think of it? That is what Golden said, and 
that is what Youtsey said. Now, let us see what else Golden says 
on that matter. Golden says he saw my brother give Youtsey a wrong 
key to that office, and Youtsey says it was the wrong key. I have never 
understood the force of that wrong key proposition until it was ex- 
plained on yesterday. I had often wondered why it was that if 
my brother was in the conspiracy to kill Senator Goebel, and my 
brother was willing for it to be done, why, instead of giving Youtsey 
the wrong key to that office to get in there with, that he did not give 
him the right key. It has always been a mystery to me until the 
fertile brain of Col. Hendricks came on the scene on yesterday and 
made it as clear as muddy water. He said that the reason was that 
my brother, John, was waiting for Jim Howard to get down to Frank- 
fort and that he did not want Youtsey to kill Goebel. Why did he not 
want Youtsey to kill him, if he and I are implicated with Youtsey as 
claimed? Why did he want to delay the matter, and have another 
man unknown to him to kill Goebel? Why should my brother be so 
choicy between unknown assassins? There is no testimony in this 
case of that character until that testimony was given in this case by 
the able attorney, Mr. Hendricks. I put the assertion on the part of 
Mr. Hendricks that my brother wanted either Youtsey or Howard to 
kill Goebel, on a par with another assertion he made on yesterday. 
He made the statement "that no woman knew any law, that no woman 
had the capacity to learn any law." I want to enter in behalf of the 
ladies of our land a special and general denial to that slanderous 
charge. 

Golden says he saw my brother give Youtsey a wrong key to the 
office, and directly my brother came to him in the hallway of the 
Executive building and said: "We have two negroes here this morning 
to kill Goebel, Tallow Dick Combs and Hockersmith," and Golden 
says: "That must not be done." My brother said to Golden, if Golden 
can be relied upon: "You need not be alarmed, I gave him the wrong 
key." He asked my bi'other who that fellow was to whom he gave the 
key. My brother did not know. Golden hied himself away after say- 
ing that it must not be done and went over to Collier's office to get 
Gen. Collier to put a stop to it. My brother went with him and failing 
to find General Collier they came over to the Capital Hotel, and that 
I saw my brother and Golden in the hallway and said to Golden: "We 
cannot go to Louisville to-day." And we all went back to the Exec- 
utive building. Golden says we did not talk about what had happened 



between my brother and Youtsey on the way back, he did not know 
whether it had been decided to kill Goebel or not. He said he never 
talked to anybody about it that day and he never talked to anybody 
until long after Senator Goebel had been killed. In fact, he never 
talked to anybody about it until he was in the arms of his Saviour, 
Col. Thomas C. Campbell, going to Cincinnati to make a confession. 

This, gentlemen, is the testimony of Wharton Golden and Youtsey 
about the alleged transaction of the key. Now, let us look into that a 
little. Let us see what bearing it has upon the case. Let us connect the 
statements of Golden and Youtsey with the facts in this case that are 
not disputed, and see whether or not the statements of Golden and 
Youtsey are in harmony with these facts. Golden and Youtsey are 
■either testifying to the truth or they are testifying to a lie. My 
brother either gave Youtsey the key to my office or he did not give 
■him the key. Golden tells you that no one was present when my 
brother gave Youtsey the second key to that office. And that I was 
not present when the first key was delivered. Youtsey says that there 
never was but one delivery and that was the wrong key, and that I 
was not present. Golden tells you that I was five or six steps in 
■advance of my brother and Youtsey, and that I was going on toward 
my office, and that I did not see nor hear the alleged transaction about 
the second key. You see, gentlemen, he puts it out of my power to 
•contradict him on that point; but Youtsey does contradict him. He 
says that he never got any second key. My brother is not here 
as a witness. The proof in this case, gentlemen, is that early on 
Monday morning I went to the Capital Hotel at Frankfort, for the pur- 
pose of making arrangements to send the mountain men back home; 
that I was over at the Capital Hotel there is no doubt; that fact is 
proven both by the testimony of the Commonwealth and by that of 
the defense. The difference in the contention of the prosecution and 
the defense, is as to why I was there. The prosecution tries to make 
it appear that I was over there trying to effect some part of the 
alleged conspiracy to kill Senator Goebel. Golden, you remember, 
testifies that early on the Monday morning that I said to him that I 
was trying to make arrangements to get off to Louisville; and that I 
had to go over to the Capital before I could make those arrangements; 
and that he showed me a letter from John H. Wilson, who was at 
Louisville, saying for him to come to Louisville. My testimony and 
Golden's differ on that point. 

At any rate, Golden knew that I was over at the Capital Hotel on 
some business; and that, if I could get that business done, I intended 
to go to Louisville on that early morning train. And he says that a 
black mustached man came to him and my brother in the hallway of 
the Executive building and said something to my brother; that he 
•did not know what he said, but my brother came to him in a few min- 



4) 

utes and said that we have two negroes here to kill Goebel, and that 
when he asked John Powers who the black-headed, black-mustached 
man was; that my brother said that he did not know who he was. 
Golden says that he went around to the Agricultural office to see Gen. 
Collier to tell him about the raurder going to be done, and to protest 
against it. Golden, who laughed and said, that when he heard that 
Goebel was killed, said that it was a damn good thing and he wa& 
glad of it — Golden, who was at all times^ willing, according to his own- 
testimony, to go up into the Legislative halls and kill off enough Dem- 
ocrats to make a Republican majority — that fiend, who, according to 
his own testimony, was ready upon all occasions to kill, for some 
unexplained and some unexplainable reason, upon this particular 
occasion was as smooth as a May morning, as harmless as a dove, as- 
timid as a tom-tit, as averse to the shedding of man's blood as a 
saint; his soul has terrified at the thought; his nature rebelled against 
it. That same Golden who, upon former occasions, and upon all occa- 
sions, was willing to walk over the blood of his dying victims; that 
same Golden who, on all after occasions, was willing to kill one or a 
dozen of those who opposed his supposed interests, as the necessities 
of the case might demand that same Golden who, when he heard that 
Goebel had been assassinated, said that it was a damn good thing, was, 
upon this particular occasion, thrown into a moral tumult over the- 
thought of harm befalling any one. 

GOLDEN'S QUEER CONDUCT. 

Golden went to Gen. Collier's ofiice, he says, to see him about it, 
and my brother went with him also to see about it; for, what else- 
could be his purpose? If Golden did tell the truth about what the 
black-headed, black-mustached man said to my brother, and if my 
brother did say that there were two negro men there to kill Senator 
Goebel and that it was going to be done that morning, and if my 
brother was in favor it, as Golden said he was, I ask you why he 
would be going to Gen. Collier's with Golden to put a stop to the 
thing? Why would he want the very thing stopped that, according 
to Golden, he was in favor of? Why should he? Ask yourselves that 
question. And why would he be giving the key to my office to a man 
he had never seen before? And if my brother was in favor of Senator 
Goebel being killed, why would he have gone to Gen. Collier with 
Golden to put a stop to it? Why would he not say to Golden that he 
ought to be killed, that it would put an end to the contest; that Golden 
would get his office and that we would all get our offices? 

That is why these gentlemen say he was killed. Their contention 
is that we thought it would put an end to everything and give us our 
offices. If that is true, gentlemen, why did not my brother present 



41 

those reasons for having Goebel killed to that blood-thirsty Golden 
and secure his co-operation in the matter? Golden, according to his 
own statement, was an open advocate Oi. murder. My brother knew 
Golden; why did he not say: "See here, you are wrong about that; it 
is to your interest and to the interest of us all that he be killed?" "Why 
did he not do that, gentlemen, instead of going with Golden to Gen. 
Collier's to put an end to the very thing with which he is charged? 

Why did they come to see me to have the thing stopped, over at 
the Capital Hotel? According to these, gentlemen, I would be the 
last man on earth to have stopped it. If there was a man in all that 
country, among all the people who were in favor of violence and blood- 
shed and murder and assassination, it was I, if these gentlemen can be 
believed in what they assert. Golden says that on former occasions 
that I said to him that Goebel ought to be killed and that I discussed 
a plan to kill on the street, and in the Capital Hotel, and that I wanted 
to kill the members of the Legislature. Golden says he knew all that, 
and that I had personally discussed with him the contemplated acts 
of violence and murder. Then tell me why, gentlemen, he came to 
me to have a stop put to all these things? Why did he come to me, 
the master conspirator, to put an end to violence? Why did he seek 
me among so many men whom he knew and who were at FrankfoFt, 
to put a stop to this proposed shedding of man's blood? 

Golden had lived for some two years at Frankfort; he knew a 
great many men; he knew Goeroe Long. He says Long knew him well 
enough to recommend him for a position; he knew the other 
men who had been elected on the State ticket. Why did he not go to 
some of these men and not to me, if he wanted to put a stop to this 
proposed murder? But he comes over to the Capital Hotel to see me, 
and when he gets there he does no even talk to me about it. He says 
that my brother said that he would talk to me about it. He says that 
my brother said he would talk to me about it, and for him to let my 
brother do the talking. He says that he did that; that my brother 
did come and talk to me and that I frowned while my brother was 
talking to me. What was I frowning about? He said that we all went 
back over to the Executive building; that we did not talk about the 
matter on the way over there; that he never did say anything to me 
about the proposed killing of Sena,tor Goebel by the two negroes. 

According to his testimony, gentlemen, he went back to the Execu- 
tive building without knowing what had been decided upon, about the 
killing of Senator Goebel by the two negroes. He did not know 
whether it had been decided to kill him or not to kill him. And yet 
the fact remains, according to his own testimony, that at no time dur- 
ing that day did he ever mention to a living soul the proposed plan 
to kill Senator Goebel. He says that he went over to the Capital Hotel 
to have an end put to the proposed killing, and still he left the Capital 



42 

Hotel without knowing what was going to be done about it. According 
to that fellow's own testimony he never did tell me about the proposed 
plan to kill Senator Goebel. If his own testimony can be believed he 
never told a living man on earth — until he told Col. Campbell on his 
trip to Cincinnati, long after Goebel had been killed. 

Is that not a most remarkable state of case, gentlemen, that in 
the first place, he would come to one whom he had all reason to be- 
lieve, if his own story can be credited, would not only not hear to his 
plans for peace and for humanity, and for law, and for order, but 
would severely reprimand him for his own lack of willingness to kill 
or to do anything else to hold the office? Is it not remarkably strange 
that he did not go to some one else? And is it not stranger still that 
after going over to the Capital Hotel, and then not knowing what was 
going to be done about it, he made no inquiries concerning it, no reve- 
lations about what he had heard, from that good day until he went 
to Cincinnati some two months afterwards. Is it not strange that he 
breathed not to a living soul that he had heard on that Monday morn- 
ing? Is it not strange that he never thought to tell any one until long 
after Goebel had been killed? 

Suppose, Mr. Wyatt, there was a conspiracy on foot to burn your 
home, and suppose somebody heard a minor conspirator talking to a 
major conspirator about burning your home, and he went to the minor 
conspirator and said: 

"See here, Mr. Wyatt is a respectable man in the community. 
He has earned his home by hard labor apd hard work and you must 
not burn his home," and suppose the fellow said to the minor con- 
spirator: "Let's go and talk to the major conspirator about it;" and 
that he did do this and stood up close, but didn't know what was 
decided to be done. Suppose that he did not know whether it was 
decided to burn your home, or not to burn it, and he went away with 
the two conspirators and did not know what was going to be done 
about it, and never mentioned to a single soul what was contem- 
plated until long after your home had been burned, and when it was 
burned, suppose the man alleged to be interested in saving your heme 
said: "It was a damned good thing and I was glad of it." How much 
weight would you attach to his testimony to the effect that he was 
opposed to your home being burned? How much credence can you 
give to Golden's testimony that upon that morning he was opposed 
■to the killing cf Goebel and said that it must not be done, and when 
he did hear that Goebel was killed, said that "It was a damned good 
thing, and that he was glad of it?" 

It is true tnat I was over at the Capital Hotel on that Monday morn- 
ing, and it is further true that I would not have been over there at the 
Capital Hotel unless I had had some business over there. I do not 
go to such places or go into men's rooms unless I have some bus- 



• 43 

iness with them. These gentlemen intimate that I was there to 
see General Duke about some plan connected with the killing 
of Senator Goebel. You heard the speakers in this case yesterday- 
intimate that General Duke was the head of everything. Then, if I 
was over there to see General Duke on anything connected with the 
conspiracy to kill Senator Goebel, General Duke is more guilty than 
I could possibly be, because he is an older man than I am; he knows 
much more than I do about men and affairs, and if you believe that 
General Duke was in the conspiracy to murder Senator Goebel, I want 
to ask you, Mr. Franklin, why you have sat here for over three years 
and witnessed vile conspirators strike down your party associates and 
go through this State unmolested, undisturbed, uncondemned and un- 
harmed? 

Gen. Duke asked no Governor of any adjacent Commonwealth to 
protect him from your Courts, or you. You can get service on him 
seven days and seven nights out of every week of every year. You 
have not done that. The truth is, Mr. Franklin, you know General 
Duke had nothing to do with the conspiracy to murder Senator Goebel. 
Then if he did not have anything to do with it, I could not have been 
over at the Capital Hotel that morning for the purpose of seeing 
General Duke on anything connected with the conspiracy to murder 
Senator Goebel, and if I was not there to see General Duke on any 
such business, why was I there? 

What is the testimony in this case? Silas Jones, a witness for 
the prosecution, tells you that I agreed to get him a pass to go home. 
Milton Prosper, a witness for the defendant, tells you that on that 
Monday morning I agreed to get him a pass to go home, and that he 
did go home on the 3rd of February. A. V. Hite tells you, and the 
deposition of Walter Day tells you, that he heard me telephoning over 
the "phcne from the Auditor's office to Louisville, trying to get trans- 
portation for men to go home. And in this connection I desire to 
call attention to the depositions in this case. Why, it was said but 
yesterday by attorneys for the prosecution that the depositions did not 
mean very much; that all there was to it, or about it, was that it was 
only an aflBdavit of the defendant. If I do not state the law accurately 
in this case, I want this honorable Court to correct me. Those affi- 
davits are the depositions of the absent witnesses. It is agreed that 
those winesses, if present, would state as in this affidavit 
if they were present here to testify. It is not my affidavit 
but the depositions of the witnesses, and if the prosecution had any 
doubt about those statements being true, they had a right to bring 
in other testimony to contradict the statements contained in those 
depositions and they had a righ't under the law to impeach the wit- 
nesses whose depositions you heard read here in your hearing. It is 
a fact known to the prosecution in this case that Walter Day has 



44 

testified on both of my former trials and that he testifies to these 
various things. Walter Day tells you I was in the Auditor's office 
telephoning down to Louisville trying to make transportation arrange- 
ments to send the mountain men home. A. V. Hite, the depot agent 
at Frankfort, tells you that he received a telephone communication 
from Louisville telling him that they had been called up by the Secre- 
tary of State's office, and they wanted him to go to my office and say 
to me that they had made a rate of one cent per mile for the purpose 
of sending the mountain men home. The testimony in this case is that 
I called up the transportation agent at Louisville that morning and 
asked him to send the coaches on the afternoon train, and the testi- 
mony further is that I was sent for by Gov. Bradley to come over to 
the Adjutant General's office in the red brick building, and that Gov. 
Bradley said to me that he undertsood that I was going to send the 
mountain men home. He said I must not send the men home. "There 
is going to be an argument before some of the contest committee, and 
you must not send them all home," he said. The testimony is that 
had it not been for Gov. Bradley those mountain men would have been 
sent home on Monday, the evening before the killing of Mr. Goebel 
on Tuesday morning. They say: "Why didn't you call Gov. Bradley 
to the witness stand and prove this by him?" I hurl it back into their 
faces and say: "Why didn't you call Gov. Br?.dley to the witness stand 
and contracdicted me in that assertion if I am swearing falsely about 
it?" I have sworn it over three years. They have had Gov. Bradley be- 
fore the grand juries of the country, and they have had him as a witness 
in the Ripley trial. They know Governor Bradley would not contradict 
me. Then I would have sent the mountain men home on Monday 
morning before Senator Goebel was killed, if I could have made the 
necessary transportation arrangements. The testimony is, that I 
would have sent them home on Monday afternoon had it not been for 
Gov. Bradley. Now, the prosecution has always claimed that those 
mounatin men were there, retained in Frankfort, for the purpose of 
killing Mr. Goebel. 

That is their claim. They claim that they were retained in Frank- 
fort, and that the culmination of the dastardly deed could not be 
reached without the presence of the mountain men; that is their 
claim. Now, I want you to ask yourselves this question, when you get 
to your jury room, when it becomes your duty, under your oaths and 
the law, to pass upon my most sacred rights — ask yourselves this 
question: "If that young man had known anything about the plan 
to kill Senator Goebel by the two negroes Monday morning, would 
h3 have been trying to send the men home on that Monday morning? 
If he had known anything about the plan to kill Senator Goebel on 
Tuesday morning, would he have been wanting to send those men 
home on Monday afternoon, and the testimony is beyond dispute that 



45 

I would have sent them home had it not been for Gov. Bradley. I 
knew nothing of the plan to kill (joebel with the two negroes. I 
knew nothing of the alleged key transaction. I know nothing of this 
alleged conspiracy. I was not a party to it. 

Even Youtsey says that I did not know anything about the negroes 
being readj' to kill Goebel, or anything about the alleged transaction 
of the wrong key between himself and my brother; for did not Yout- 
sey say that after my brother had given him the wrong key to my 
ofBce, that I came to him and said: "My brother tells me that you 
have two negroes here to kill Goebel, and that he had given you the 
wrong key;" and that I then said to him: "I cannot give you the keys 
to that office, but that it shall be at your disposal." Did not Youtsey 
say that? If his statement be true about the transaction of the wrong 
key and the two negroes, I did not know anything of the alleged plan 
to kill Goebel with the negroes. 

On the former trials of this case, these gentlemen prosecuting me, 
In their speech-making capacity, have sworn to other juries until they 
were black in the face, that my trying to send the mountain men away 
on the Monday morning before the killing was a farce; that the state- 
ments of witnesses to the effect that, if I could have made the neces- 
sary transportation arrangements to have sent the mountain men 
home on that morning, I would have gone to Louisville to have met 
a young lady friend of mine, was all hypocrisy and deception. They 
said that the reason why I did net go to Louisville on that morning 
was, not because I failed to make transportation arrangements for 
the men, but because there was a failure in the plan to kill Goebel 
with the two negroes, from the fact that my brother had given Yout- 
sey the wrong key. And on this theory of the case, they asked other 
juries to hang me. Now, Youtsey overturns it all and says that I did not 
know anything about the transaction of the wrong key, or the killing 
of Goebel by the two negroes at that time, but that I came to him later 
and told him what my brother had revealed to me. 

Golden says when he got to the Executive building he saw my 
brother give Youtsey a second key to my office. Youtsey says that that 
is not true. Youtsey says Golden lied about that. Youtsey says he 
never got but one key to that office from my brother, or anybody else, 
and that that was the wrong key, and that that was before that 
time and on the same morning. But when we got back to the 
Executive building on the morning of the day Senator Goebel 
was killed, Youtsey says I came to him later on in the day, 
into his little private office, and said to him: "I understand 
you have two negroes here to kill Goebel; John Powers told me that, 
and I want to know what about it." Youtsey says: "That is all true." 
And Youtsey testified that I then said to him that I could not loan 
him the key to that office — that he then went with me over to the 



46 

glass door leading from the hallway into the private office of the 
Secretary of State, and that here he said to me: "Now, you can put 
your foot down on this thing and stop it if you want to. All you 
have to do to keep Goebel from being killed is to put your foot down 
on it and it will not be done." But Youtsey says I didn't do that, but 
that I said: "I cannot loan you the key to my office, but I will fix the 
door so that, at any time, you want to, you can walk in and make your- 
self at home. He says that I unlocked and unbolted the little door 
leading into the private office from the hallway and left it in such 
condition that anybody who would push against it, could open it. And 
that he said for me to be away from my office and that I agreed to it. 
That is his testimony. This is the only conversation, he says, I ever 
had with him relative to the killing of Senator Goebel. 

Now, let us see about that. If his testimony be true — but it 
is every word a sworn lie — but let us consider ior the present 
that it is true ,and look at it from that standpoint and see 
what it proves. If it be true, then I must have left the door ajar on 
that day for the purpose of having Mr. Goebel killed by Hockersmith 
and Dick Combs, after I had found out that they wanted to kill him. 
The testimony in this case is, that I did not then know Dick Combs, 
and that I had never seen or heard of Hockersmith. But, of course, a 
little thing like that could not shake the credence of the story told 
by this divine lover and server of truth — Henry E. Youtsey. Youtsey 
said I agreed to be away from my office and that he said to me that 
I had better be away; that he didn't want me mixed up in the matter, 
and he wanted me away and I agreed to be away. Cannot you see 
his solicitude for me? Then, if I agreed to be away from that office 
on January 29th for the purpose of having the negroes Hockersmith 
and "Tallow Dick" Combs kill Goebel, I certainly lied to Youtsey, 
because I was in the office on that very day and I remained in it all 
the day, and that is the testimony in this case. Then, when Yout- 
sey said that I agreed to leave the hall door open for the purpose of 
having Goebel killed by Hockersmith and "Tallow Dick" Combs, and 
that I would also be away from that office, to let it be done from there 
on that day, he certainly lied about it or I lied to him, one or the 
ether, because I was in my office the whole of that day. Neither 
Hockersmith nor Dick Combs tried to kill Goebel from that office on 
that day. There is no proof of it in this record. Then I certainly 
did not leave that office door ajar for the purpose of having Howard 
kill Goebel on the next day, for Youtsey says himself that he found 
that locked on the next day. 

But let us look into the matter a little further. Mr. Campbell 
said in his opening statement to this jury (I am sorry the Colonel 
made a contrary statement in his speech) : "If Caleb Powers gave 
Youtsey the key, then Caleb Powers should give his life for the life 



^. 



47 



so ruthlessly taken. If Caleb Powers did not give the key to Youtsey 
he has gone a long way toward helping the side of the defense in 
this case. I cannot be fairer than that. I say if Caleb Powers did 
not give the key to Youtsey, he has broken an inaportant link in our 
chain of evidence. If he did give it, I believe, as I have to answer 
to the God above, that I can see no escape from the conclusion of his 
guilt. I am reminded that I say Caleb Powers. What I should have 
said was that Powers gave the key. John Powers got it from his 
brother and gave it to Youtsey." 

That is what Mr. Campbell said in his opening statement in this 
case. He said if he could not show that either myself or my brother 
gave Youtsey the key to that oflBce for the purpose of having Goebel 
killed from that office, he would admit that a strong link in the testi- 
mony of the prosecution of this case had been broken. Let us see 
if the Colonel has not almost admitted me not guilty. If the testi- 
mony of Youtsey and of every other man who has testified about 
it can be relied upon, then a strong link in the chain of testimony of 
the prosecution in this case has been broken, because Youtsey says he 
never get but one key to that office and that was the wrong key on 
the Monday before the tragedy, and that he never got a right key 
from either myself or my brother. That is the testimony of Henry E. 
Youtsey. I testified that he never did get a key from me. Youtsey 
says that he did not have any key on the day Goebel was killed, but 
that he went through an OPEN DOOR leading from the reception 
rocm into the private office. Then what becomes of this alleged key 
business? Has it not been eliminated from this case? Have not both 
the mountain crowd and the alleged key transaction been eliminated? 
If the testimony can be relied upon, is it not true, that no man who 
came with that mountain crowd killed Goebel; and is it not further 
true, that Youtsey did not get the key either from myself or my 
brother with which to get into my office on the 30th of January. 

You remember, gentlemen, it is a part of the current history of 
this State that on both of my former trials the prosecution have 
begged the jurie§ of this country to take from me my life on the 
theory that John Powers gave the right key to my private office to 
Henry E. Youtsey, and that John Powers did that at my solicitation 
and at my request. They have asked former juries to take my life 
from me on that proposition. They not only deceived the former 
juries in this case and the country at large, but they deceived the 
Democratic minority of the Court of Appeals of this State, because 
they said in a dissenting opinion that there was no doubt in their 
minds but that Youtsey got the right key from my brother and that 
he had gone into my office through thie glass door that leads into the 
hall way and killed Mr. Goebel from that office. They have not only 
deceived the juries of the country, but they have deceived the highest 



48 

tribunals of this land. Now, the prosecution takes a double somer- 
sault from their former position and says that none of what they have 
formerly claimed is true; that the only thing that is true, is that I 
agreed to be away from my office when Senator Goebel was killed. 
Youtsey says that the outer door from my private office to the 
hallway was locked and that he had to go through the reception 
room into the private office to open tnat door on the 30th of January. 
Then, if I am connected with Henry E. Youtsey at all, if his own testi- 
mony can be relied upon, it is the connection of allowing him to go 
through that open door on the 30th for the purpose of using that 
office for murder, and not as the people have been taught to believe, 
that he got a key from my brother. Is not that true? Have I not 
stated it fairly? I say if I had any connection with Henry E. Youtsey, 
so far as the killing of Mr. Goebel is concerned, it must be the con- 
nection by leaving that door open from the reception room into my 
priavte office for the purpose of having murder committed from there. 
The other door was locked. Youtsey, Golden and myself all testify to 
that. Then that door was not left open for the purpose of Youtsey 
getting in that office to commit murder. 

Now, let us take up the testimony in this case and see whether 
or not I did leave that other door open for the purpose of letting 
Youtsey go in there to kill Senator Goebel. What is the testimony? 
The testimony is, even by Col. Campbell's first love and first star 
witness, Wharton Golden himself, that he came into my private 
office on Tuesday on which Senator Goebel was killed and said: "Rush 
up or you are going to miss that train," and he says I went to the 
door leading to the reception rccm and locked the door and bolted it 
on the inside. That is the testimony of Wharton Golden. He testified 
to that in all these trials, even before Youtsey ever became a witness 
in this case — even before Youtsey was arrested. Youtsey says the 
door was open, but Wharton Golden, another star witness for the 
prosecution, says the door was closed, and that it was locked on the 
inside and bolted. Now whom are you going to believe, Henry E. 
Youtsey or Wharton Golden? ¥/harton is trying to swear himself 
from getting into the penitentiary and Youtsey is trying to swear 
himself out of it. You can believe whichever one you want to, or 
you can stand them both aside and say we cannot believe either one 
of them; because they are both star witnesses for the prosecution, 
and they are testifying diametrically opposed, each to the other. What 
else do we have in this case upon that proposition? Mr. Nickell, who 
has testified for the prosecution, said that he had some business with 
Gov. Taylor on the morning of the killing, and while he was sitting in 
the reception room, waiting to see Gov. Taylor, that he saw some 
man go into that private office and come out and go into the private 
office of the Governor. That is the testimony of Mr. Nickell. Now, 



49 

Mr. J. M. Hardgrove, a witness for the defendant, saj's that he was also 
sitting in that reception room thirty or forty minutes before Mr. Goe- 
bel was killed, at the very time Mr. Niclde says he was sitting <n 
there, and Mr. Hardgrove says that no man went into that office during 
that interval; that he did see some man who he believed was Grant 
Roberts, go and try to get into that office, and he failed to get in 
there. Mr. Hardgrove is corroborated by Mr. Roberts, because he 
says that he did try to get into my private office and failed, because 
the door was locked, but you can believe Mr. NicKcll or you can 
believe Mr. Hardgrove, just as you like about it. One or the other' 
of them lied. There is no doubt about that. Then, what else do we 
have? 

Golden stands up against Youtsey. They are both star witnesses 
and as far as I am concerned, you can throw both to the ground and 
not believe either. Mr. Hardgrove says the man did not go in, and 
Mr. Nickell says he did. So far as I am concerned, you can throw both 
of them to the ground and believe neither. Then what do we have? 

In addition to this testimony, R. N. Miller tells you that he tried 
to get into that office between 9:30 and 11 o'clock and he found the 
door locked and he could not unlock it. Grant Roberts says that he 
had some business in the private office of the Secretary of State, and 
you noticed the manly bearing of that young man Grant Roberts upon 
the witness stand. He tells you he tried to get Into that office on that 
morning on some business connected with the Auditor's office and 
failed to get there. Then, if the testimony in this case can be relied 
upon, Henry E. Youtsey did not go through that door. What else? 

Jim Howard says it is all untrue that Youtsey went around 
through that reception room and let him into that private office. Then 
what is the testimony in this case? Henry E. Youtsey and Mr. Nickell, 
upon the side of the prosecution, say that the door was open, and J. M. 
Hardgrove, Wharton Golden, R. N. Miller, Grant Roberts, Jim Howard 
and Ben Rowe and myself, all on the other side, say that the door was 
locked on that occasion and that they could not get in there. That 
is the connection they have between me and Henry E. Youtsey, and 
what are you going to do about it? Are you going to say that Youtsey 
is a gentleman and a truth-teller and a Saint? Youtsey says any- 
body will lie when he gets into trouble, no matter how honest he may 
be before that time. That is Youtsey's idea That is what Ycutsey 
said on the witness stand. Then what are you going to do about it? 
That is the only connection between me and Henry E. Youtsey so 
far as the death of Senator Goebel is concerned, if his own words 
can be relied upon. Are you going to say beyond a reasonable doubt 
that Yousey is a gentleman and a truth-teller? Are you going to say 
that Youtsey is the only man in all this case who is entitled to belief? 
Are you going to say beyond a reasonable doubt that R. N. Miller, 



50 

former County Attorney of Breckinridge County, swore to a lie, and 
that Grant Roberts, the brother of the able editor of the Lexington 
Leader, swore to a lie, and that J. M. Hardgrove swore to a lie, and 
that Ben Rowe swore to a lie? Ben Rowe is another man who says 
he tried to get into that office between 10 and 11 '■'clock, and Mr. 
Franklin called him on the proposition, and said: "Ben, didn't you 
say on the former trial in this case that you got back to that office 
and unlocked it about 9:30 when, if Powers can be relied upon, he 
had locked the door and bolted it on the inside and gone to Louis- 
yille?" and Ben says: "I don't remember about that; I don't think I 
did." But put it as Mr. Franklin wants it. That door was, as a matter 
of fact, at 9:30, locked from the inside. But let Mr. Franklin take what- 
ever horn of the dilemma he likes. That door, on that occasion, was 
locked and bolted, or it was locked and not bolted. Then, if it was 
simply locked, as Mr. Franknn tried to get Ben Rowe to say, then 
what do we have? 

Ben Rowe had a key to the office, W. J. Davidson had a key to the 
bolted, or it was locked and not bolted. Then, if it was simply locked, 
the dilemma he likes. That door, on that occasion, was locked and 
office, and there is no telling how Youtsey got in there. He might 
have gotten in there through one of those people. Let Mr. Franklin 
take whatever horn of the dilemma he likes. Then, are you going to 
say that Miller and Hardgrove and Grant Roberts and Wharton 
Golden and Jim Howard and Ben Rowe swore to a lie beyond a 
reasonable doubt, and that Henry Youtsey is a living embodiment of 
all the manly virtues, and that the testimony of this convict and self- 
confessed perjurer is entitled to more weight than all these other 
gentlemen, who are not confessed perjurers, and whose testimony the 
law does not challenge, but respects? And this connection of this 
door is the only connection that they have shown between Henry E. 
Youtsey and myself in this case. What are you going to do bout it? 

Now let us take up the other door and discuss that in this con- 
nection. You will remember that Youtsey said on the 29th of January 
that I agreed to leave the door that leads from the private office to the 
main hallway ajar. I have not discussed that door on the morning 
cf the 30th, when Senator Goebel was killed. Let us see in what con- 
dition we find that door. 

Golden says that I pulled that door to as I went to Louisville that 
morning; that it was a Yale lock, and that it locked itself; that I 
pushed against it and that it was locked. He is a witness for the 
prosecution. I testified in my testimony that the door was locked, 
and even Youtsey himself says that the door was locked, because he 
says he took Jim Howard to that door to wait for him while he (Yout- 
sey) went around through the reception room into the private office 
and unlocked the glass door and let Howard in. So, if the testimony 



51 

can be relied upon, that door was also locked. Then you say to me: 
"Mr. Powers we are of the opinion that the shot was fired from the 
office of the Secretary of State, and you have proven to us here by 
the testimony in this case that ooth of those doors were locked. If 
that be true, I would like to know how it is, that that shot could have 
been fired from the office of the Secretary of State?" Why, gentlemen, 
all we have to do in order to determine this matter, is to go to the 
prosecution for testimony. They give us an explanation of it. What 
does Culton say? Culton says that Youtsey said to him away back 
in January that he had the slickest scheme yet to kill Senator Goebel; 
that he had a key to the office of the Secretary of State, and he could 
go in there and pull down the blinds and a man could shoot Senator 
Goebel and escape through the basement. That is what Culton tells 
you that Youtsey said to him away back in January. If Youtsey can 
be relied upon, he did not get that key from either myself or my 
brother. He never did get the right key from either of us to that 
office, and he never attempted to get but one key and that was on 
the 29th of January, the day before Senator Goebel was killed. That 
is what he says about it. Then, relying upon the testimony for the 
prosecution in this case, you see how Senator Goebel could have been 
killed from the office of the Secretary of State. Youtsey told Culton 
that he had a key to that office or a key that would unlock that office, 
and Youtsey said that he didn't get it from myself or my brother; 
that he didn't try to get a key from either of us until the 29th of 
January, 1900. But how else cculd the shot have been fired from that 
office? Why, it is in the testimony in this case that those Yale locks 
are numbered on the inside and anybody who was in that office could 
have gotten the number to those Yale logks and gotten a key to fit 
them. The testimony in this case is that there ought to have been 
three keys to the side dcor of my private office that leads into the 
main hallway, and the testimony is that I never did get but one key 
to that office when the offce was turned over to me, and the two 
keys are unaccounted for, and some one of those two keys might 
have been used in getting into that office. The prosecution tells you 
that the windows to the private office of the Secretary cf State were 
up on the 30th of January. If they were up, or if they could be 
raised, scmebody might have raised those windows from the outside 
and gotten into that office. Seme one could have gotten access to that 
office in all these ways. You know that burglars roam over the coun- 
try and can unlock your door and get into your house and get into 
your money-drawer. There is a noted burglar in the Georgetown jail 
now. He tells me that he can pass by any door in this town and 
see the kind of a key that unlocks it and go off and in a half an hour 
have a key made and unlock that door. If Youtsey is the same expert 
in getting into offices and making keys and things of that character 



52 

as he is in determining the grains of powder in a cartridge; if he has 
the same knowledge about things of that character as he has about 
guns, nobody would doubt that he could get into that office. But if 
what both he and Culton says about it he had gotten hold of a key 
away back in January that would unlock my private office, and if what 
Youtsey says, can be believed, he did not get that key, either from my 
brother or myself. 

Then, if testimony can be believed, I did not leave that rffice open on 
the day of the tragedy for the purpose of having murder committed 
from there. Youtsey, Golden and myself all say that the door lead- 
ing from the private office into the hallway was locked on that day, 
and R. N. Miller and Grant Roberts, who had business in my office 
connected with the Auditor's office, and Ben Rowe, the janitor, and 
Wharton Golden and J. M. Hardgrove and myself all say that the door 
leading from the private office into the reception room was also 
locked. Jim Howard indirectly says the same thing, because he said 
that Youtsey did not let him in that office, as is claimed by 
Youtsey, and the only two witnesses to the effect that the door was 
open on the 30th was Youtsey and Nickell. And you know that the 
door leading from the reception room into my private office was 
locked and bolted from the inside on that day; for when Goebel was 
shot and an angry crowd in the street was threatening to mob the 
occupants of the Executive Building, those in the reception room tried 
to get into my private office through the reception room door for 
the purpose of getting the guns in that office with which to defend 
themselves. The proof is overwhelming, and not contradicted, that 
that door was locked and bolted on the inside, and Matthews had 
to climb through the transom in order to get into that private office. 
Rowe, Miller, Todd, Hardgrove and every one else testifies to that. 
That fact is not disputed. Then we must conclude that tb-^ door lead- 
ing from the reception room into my private office was locked on the 
day of the tragedy, and not left open, as Youtsey claims for the pur- 
pose of giving himself access to that office in order that murder might 
be committed from there. And I have explained to you how Youtsey 
did have access to that office on former occasions, and without my 
knowledge or consent, if his own and Culton's testimony can be 
believed. And you remember that thirty-two Yale keys were found 
in a drawer in Youtsey's little office after Goebel had been killed, and 
how nearly one of them came to unlocking the glass door to my pri- 
vate office. What was Youtsey -doing with all those Yale keys? An- 
swer me that. Now let us take up the claim on the part of the prose- 
cution that I left my office on the morning of the 30th for the purpose 
of letting murder be committed from there. 

Youtsey says that I agreed to be away from my office for the 
purpose of letting murder be committed from there, and leave it 



accessable for murder to be committed, and the Commonwealth says 
that Youtsey is corroborated in that proposition because they say I 
was away on the 30th of January, 1900; and they say that in that 
particular Henry E. Youtsey is corroborated because I was away. It 
is true, gentlemen, I was away, and I want to say to the Commonwealth 
right here, that I will risk the fate of my case upon why I was away 
from Frankfort on that day. Whatever may be said about me up to 
that time; whatever rash conduct or incendiary speech may have been 
attributed to me, or has been testified to by anybody who has sworn 
against me; whatever may have been said upon the side of the de- 
fense, so far as I am individually concerned, I am willing, gentlemen, 
for you to erase from this case all that has been proven in it up to 
this time and risk my fate in your hands upon the purpose of my 
trip to Louisville that day. If my trip to Louisville, as is claimed 
by the prosecution, was in bad faith; if my trip te Louisville was for 
the purpose, as is claimed by the prosecution, of permitting my office 
to be used for the purpose of letting murder be committed from there, 
and for the purpose of being out of the way and trying to take sus- 
picion from myself — I say if that claim on the part of the prosecution 
be true, it does not matter what else may have been proven in this 
case, in that event, I would te guilty. I say, if that be true, it does not 
matter what else may be proven on the part of the prosecution, ift tha\ 
event I am guilty; but I say to you on the other hand, if my trip 
to Louisville on that day was in good faith, for the purpose of getting 
a crowd of people, mostly from Western Kentucky, to come to Frank- 
fort to petition the Legislature, as is claimed by the defense, what- 
ever else may have happened up to that time, I am not guilty, because 
I could not be guilty if I were going to Louisville for the purpose of 
getting up a crowd of people to come to Frankfort to petition the 
Legislature, for in that event, if I had known Mr. Goebel was going 
to be killed, such an act as that on my part would have been a use- 
less and senseless one and such a mission as that would have been 
the height of nonsense and folly. One of the attorneys on the part 
of the prosecution said on yesterday: "Why didin't you go and yet your 
peaceful petitioners from Western Kentucky after hearing that Sen- 
ator Goebel was killed? What did the killing of Senator Goebel have 
to do with it? Why did you stop and why did you come back to 
Frankfort?" You know why. There is not a man in this case but 
what knows that it would have been as useless and as senseless to 
plead to the Legislature after Senator Goebel had been killed and 
when the bosoms of our law-makers were heaving with rage at the 
dastardly and cowardly crime that had been committed in Frankfort — 
it would have been as useless, I say, to plead and petition to them 
when they were drunk with passion and filled with hate — as it would 
be for a man to beg and plead to the Niagara Falls not to hurt him 



6-1 

Htier he had thrown himself from its precipice and was going down 
into the depths of its awful abyss. So, the mission of my trip to 
Louisville on the 30th of January is a most important matter in this 
case. If I were going in good faith, I am not guilty. If I were going 
in bad faith, I am guilty. How are we to determine the purposes of 
the trip? Let us be fair with each other. How can we determine 
whether my trip to Louisville was in good faith or in bad faith? We 
have to determine that from the testimony in this case. Not from what 
I say about it; not from what the lawyers on the other side of this 
case say about it. That should not weigh as much as a straw with 
you one way or the other in the rendition of your verdict. You have 
to determine that matter from the testimony in the case; and what 
is the testimony as to the purpose of my trip to Louisville on the 30th 
of January, 1900? 

Golden says he did not know why I was going to Louisville on 
that day; that, so far as he was concerned, he had a letter from John 
t?enry Wilson to come there, and that that was his business to Louis- 
ville, but did not know why I was going or why my brother was going. 
He did not know why Long and Day were going. He did not know 
anything about it. So the only man on the side of the prosecution 
who 'gives us any reason for my being away from my office on that 
day is Henry E. Youtsey, and he says that I agreed to be away from 
my office that it might be accessible for murderous purposes. What 
has the defense to rebut the testimony of Henry E. Youtsey? It has 
this: R. N. Miller tells you tnat on the night of the 29th of January 
he discussed with me at my boarding house, in Frankfort, the plan 
of bringing a crowd of petitioners from Western Kentucky on the 
following day. Walter Day tells you in his deposition in this case that 
on the evening of the 29th of January between the hours of 4 and 5 
o'clock he came into my office and said that Gov. Taylor wanted him 
and myself and others to bring a crowd of petitioners from Western 
Kentucky. The testimony is that W. J. Davidson was also a member 
of that meeting. I testified that the meeting was neld. What has 
the prosecution to rebut that testimony? We say that we were dis- 
cussisg the trip to Western Kentucky and we decided to sleep over 
the matter that night and ir .et back at my office early Tuesday morn- 
ing and decide whether cv not we would go to Louisville that day. 
The idea was that the Contest Committee would decide the case in 
a few days and if we were to get anybody from Western Kentucky we 
had to get them at once. These men tell you we did meet back at my 
office on the next morning. J. Lon Butler, on the witness stand here, 
tells you that he was called into that meeting on. Tuesday morning 
and that we decided to go into Western Kentucky to get a crowd of 
petitioners to petition the Legislature. And, as I said to start out with, 
if we were going to get a crowd of petitioners to petition the Legls- 



55 

nature, we could not have known that Senator Goebel was going to 
be killed, because our mission in that event would have been a 
useless and senseless one. A man with a spoonful of brains in his 
cranium would have known that the people would be swept off 
their feet at such a cowardly and atrocious and brutal murder as that 
of Senator Goebel. You know that the people at the time were in 
no state, or frame of mind, to be reasoned with. Butler tells you 
that we were going to get a crowd of people to petition the Legisla- 
ture. Day tells you we were going to get a crowd of people to petition 
tJtie Legislature. So dees Davidson, and I testify to that myself. Whom 
ai-e you going to believe, Day and Davidson and Butler and Miller and 
myself, cr Henry E. Youtsey? You have either got to believe Henry 
E. Youtsey or you have to believe these other men. Before you can 
<daim my trip to Louisville on January 30th was not in god faith, you 
have to say that Lon Butler, Walter Day, W. J. Davidson, J. L. Butler, R. 
N. Miller and myself all swore to a lie beyond a reasonable doubt. What 
are you going to do about it? After that meeting is over, Day, Butler, 
Long, Golden, my brother and myself go on to the depot, on our way 
to Louisville. Lon Butler says that we discussed the trip to Western 
Kentucky on the train. He said he agreed to get the men on the 
Illincis Central Railroad. He is a traveling man and lived in that 
section cf the State and was well acquainted throughout the entire 
Western section of the State. The testimony is, if George W. Long 
can be believed, that he and I discussed the matter cf getting peti- 
tioners from Western Kentucky on the train going to Louisville 
that day; and that we made a list of the stations from Henderson 
around by Bowling Green and made an estimate of about the number 
of men we could get and about the cost of transportation. That is 
the testimony of George W. Long. The testimony is that more than 
a.n hour, or about an hour, before Senator Goebel was killed, George 
W. Long sent two telegrams from Christiansburg to Ed Mentz, of 
Glasgow Junction; Jim Frank Taylor, of Glasgow, and E. U. Fordyce, 
of Bowling Green, calling them to Louisville. You heard those tele- 
grams read here by two or three people. They are here and speak 
for themselves. There is no doubt about that. Here was George W. 
Long sending telegrams to Ed Mentz, B. U. Fordyce, and Jim Frank 
Taylor to meet us at Louisville, Ky. Why was this done? Do you 
pretend to say that George W. Long was in the conspiracy and in 
the plot? Do you mean to say that he was in the conspiracy and that 
he, tec, was trying to cover up his alleged connection with the crime? 
Do you mean to say that Walter Day was in the conspiracy and that 
he was trying to cover up his alleged connection with the crime? 
Lon Butler said he wrote and Long signed the telegrams. Do you 
mean to say that Lon Butler was in the conspiracy and that he was 
trying to cover up his alleged connection with the crime? Do you 



-.6 

mean to say, Mr. Franklin — you, whose sworn duty it is to prosecute- 
all violators of the law in this the Fourteenth Judicial District of the 
State of Kentucky — you believe they were in the conspiracy and 
you are not prosecuting them? If you do, you have been false to the 
people who elected you and untrue to your oath of office. If that be 
true, you are the worst enemy the State has within its confines thi& 
day, although you say it is filled with murderers and assassins. The 
truth is, Mr. Franklin, you don't believe a word of it. The truth is, you 
know that Long and the other men were not in the alleged conspiracy. 
Then, if they were not in the alleged conspiracy, they were not send- 
ing those telegrams to Jim Frank Taylor, E. U. Fordyce and Ed Mentz, 
in an attempt to cover up their alleged connection with the killing 
of Senator Goebel, and if that is true, why were these telegrams sent? 
For what purpose were they sent? They were sent, if the testimony- 
can be relied upon, to get E. U. Fordyce, Jim Frank Taylor and Ed 
Mentz to come to Louisville on the night of the 30th of January for 
the purpose of helping get up a crowd of petitioners to come to Frank- 
fort from the Western end of the State. That being true, we did not 
know that Senator Goebel was going to be killed, as heretofore ex- 
plained. And on the way to Louisville, about an hour after the tele- 
grams were sent, the news was reported through the train that 
Senator Goebel had been shot from the second or third story of the 
Executive Building — shot down in the State House Yard. The testi- 
mony is, that I said, as scon as I heard it, that it was a shame and an 
outrage and that it had ruined our chances to win in the contests. 
That is what I said, men. But Golden adds that I said it sarcastically. 
He didn't say that the first time he testified in this case. He said 
no thing, about my using those words in a sarcastic manner, but, when 
he was told by those who have him in charge: "Golden, if you are 
expecting immunity from the Commonwealth, you must testify for 
the Commonwealth, and it won't do to say that Powers said upon 
hearing that Senator Goebel was killed that it was a shame and an 
outrage, and that it had ruined our chances to win, because, if Powers 
uttered those words, and said them in earnest, he certainly was not 
in favor of Senator Goebel being killed; for he certainly knew if 
Goebel were killed that it would ruin the chances of the Republicans 
to hold their offices." And Golden changed his story and now says- 
that I uttered those words sarcastically. The prosecution says, when 
they are confronted with overwhelming evidence of my innocence, 
that I am a Dr. Jekyll and a Mr. Hyde; that I do not mean what I say, 
that I am acting a double part, that there was nobody more glad than 
myself to hear the news that Goebel had been shot down and assassi- 
nated. These are the things that these gentlemen say; but I want to 
leave it to you, if I did not speak the truth, when I said that it was a 
shame and an outrage when Senator Goebel was shot. I leave it to your 



57 

honest hearts, to your own sense of right and wrong, if it was- not an 
outrage when Senator Goebel was shot down like a dog by an assas- 
sin's bullet. I leave it to you further, if I did not speak the truth, 
when- I said that it had ruined the chances of the Republicans to win 
the contest. The whole world knows that the Republicans lost their 
tr<ffict^, and didn't I speak the truth when I said it would ruin the 
chances of the Republicans to win in the contest? Any fool would 
have known that. Any fool would have known, if Senator Goebel 
had been shot down from the Executive building, occupied by Republi- 
cans, shot down in the State House square, that the Republicans would 
be charged with it; and if they were charged with it, woftld not any- 
body know that it would ruin the chances of the Republicans to win 
their offices, when they were being contested before Democratic 
tribunals? Would I not have known, and didn't I know, that such a 
thing, charged to the Republicans, would make the board of Demo- 
cratic Election Commissioners decide against me in my case? 

"We go to Louisville and what else do we have: Jim Frank Taylor 
was put upon the witnes stand in this case for the defense. "Mr. Tay- 
lor, did you receive a telegram from Geo. W. Long to come to Louis- 
ville on the evening train of January 30th, 1900?" "Yes sir." "Did 
you come to Louisville in response to that telegram?" "Yes sir." 
"Did you know why you were going to Louisville before you got 
there?" "No sir." "Were you informed of the purpose after you got 
to Louisville?" "Yes sir." "Tell what that purpose was?" "We ob- 
ject, we object," says Mr. Franklin. Why object to letting Mr. Taylor 
tell this jury and tell this country that he was called to Louisville 
to help get up a crowd of people to petition the Legislature. You 
claim to have no desire in your heart to prosecute an innocent man. 
You claim that you are acting only in the discharge of your official 
duties; and if that be true, why is it you did not let Jim Frank Taylor 
tell this jury that he was sent for to come to Louisville to help get a 
crowd of petitioners to petition the Legislature, from Western Ken- 
tucky? Why didn't you do it? And when E. U. Fordyce and Ed. 
Mentz were put upon the witness stand, they were asked if they had 
not received telegrams from Geo. W. Long, calling them to Louis- 
ville and they said they nad, and they read the elegrams here in your 
presence, and when the question was finally put to them, "Did Geo. 
W. Long tell you the object of your being sent for to come to Louis- 
ville," they said, "Yes." "What was that purpose?" "We object" piped 
out a chorus of voices on the part of the prosecution. Why did they 
object, if they had no desire that an innocent man be punished? Why 
not let the truth in this case come out? Why not let me show that 
I was on a legitimate mission on the 30th of January and, therefore, 
could not have known about any plot to kill Senator Goebel? Why 
don't they deal fairly with me? 



As I said to start out with, if my trip to Louisville was in good 
faith, I am not guilty. If it was in bad faith, I am guilty. Then what 
are you going to do about it? What is the testimony in this case? 
Henry Youtsey, a convict in the walls of the penitentiary, Henry E. 
Youtsey, who has sworn on both sides of this case and both sides 
of the Howard case, Henry E. Youtsey, who first makes an affidavit 
that he did not know anything, and then comes up and swears from 
the witness stand that he knows almost everything, Henry E. Youtsey, 
who deceived the jury and the country in his own trial by having a 
pretended sonniption fit in the Court-house during the progress of his 
trial. Henry E. Youtsey, who deceived Arthur Goebel when he told 
him that he let Tallow Dick Combs and Berry Howard into the private 
office of the Secretary of State, now comes to this witness stand to 
deceive you, in the hope of making life bearable in the penitentiary 
of this State, and finally of roaming over the inviting fieldrs of freedom 
in payment for his infamy. Be not deceived about it. 

It is the same Henry E. Youtsey, who is the only man who 
tried to give any reason why I went to Louisville on the 30th of 
January, and I was surprised, Mr. Hendricks, I was sorely disappointed 
and seriously surprised when you, a man who has been a candidate 
for the highest office within the gift of the people of the great State 
of Kentucky, said to this jury upon yesterday in substance, that you 
endorsed Youtsey's conduct, when he had a conniption fit here in this 
Court-house and kept the jury from rendering the verdict against 
him that they otherwise would have rendered. He said Youtsey was 
smarter than I; that Youtsey had a conniption fit and that I did not. 
No, I did not; no, I never will. You can turn every stone of this land 
into a scaffold, every tree into a gallows, every home into a grave 
and I will yet be found here as long as my frail form stays above the 
green turf, fighting my case and maintaining my innocence; and .if 
there is any blotch brought upon the fair name of the State of Ken- 
tucky by reason of these trials, that blotch will be written upon its 
pages by the pen of the prosecution. It has never been written, it 
will never be written* by a pen of mine or by my submitting and giving 
up and having conniption fits, when I know and the God above me 
knows ,that I had no more to do with the killing of Senator Goebel 
than any man on this jury. 

Are you going to believe Henry E. Youtsey, or are you going to be- 
lieve these other men? Before you bring in a verdict of guilty in this 
case, what have you to do? 

As I said to start out with, if my trip to Louisville was in good 
faith, I am innocent, and if that trip was in bad faith, I am guilty. 
Then what are you going to do about it? You have Youtsey upon the 
one hand swearing that my trip to Louisville was in bad faith, and you 
have R. N. Miller, saying nothing of myself, and Walter Day. and W. J. 



59 

Davidson, and Lon Butler, and Jim Frank Taylor, and E. U. Fordyce 
and E. Mentz and George W. Long and the two telegrams testifying 
that my trip to Louisville was in good faith. What are you going to 
do about it? Are you going to say that George W. Long, ex-Treasurer 
of State, swore to a lie beyond all reason of doubt, when he said 
my trip to Louisville on the 30th of January was in good faith, when 
his testimony is not contradicted by a living witness in this case 
except Henry E. Youtsey, and by him only indirectly? Are you going 
to say that Lon Butler swore to a lie beyond a reasonable doubt 
when he said that my trip to Louisville was in good faith? Are you 
going to say that Walter Day, the ex-Treasurer of your State under 
the Taylor administration, swore to a lie beyond a reasonable doubt 
when he said that my trip to Louisville was in good faith? Are you 
going to do that, when the testimony of Long and the testimony of 
Butler and the testimony of Miller and Mentz's testimony and the 
testimony of the two telegrams all sustain, uphold and corroborate 
each ether? What are you going to do about it? Are you going to 
say that all these men swore to a lie beyond a reasonable doubt when 
their testimony is not contradicted by a living witness, except Henry 
Youtsey? Their testimony is not impeach eed, it is unimpeachable. 
Then what are you going todo about it? You have sworn that you would 
try this case according to the law and the testimony, and if the testi- 
mony has anything to do with it, there is but one possible verdict and 
that is a verdict of not guilty. You have either got to say that Ex- 
Treasurer of State, George W. Long, Treasurer of State, Walter R. 
Day, J. L. Butler, a trusted traveling man; ex-Superintendent of 
Public Instruction W. J. Davidson, ex-County Attorney R. N. Miller, 
Ed. Mentz, Jim Frank Taylor and S. U. Fordyce, all worthy citizens 
cf this State, and the two telegrams and myself are all perjured 
scoundrels of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, when the testimony of 
all is unimpeached and is unimpeachable, and when they sustain and 
corroborate each other, or you have got to say that Henry E. Yout- 
sey is a living embodiment cf truth, honor, uprightness and integrity. 
Ycu either have to do that or you are compelled to find a verdict of 
net guilty in this case. There is no escape from that conclusion. 

Then if you try me by the law and the testimony, and you have 
sworn that ycu. would so try me, I will be given my liberty. There 
can be no escape from it. 

My friend Wilson gave you an able dissertation on the testimony 
cf Henry E. Youtsey. I cannot spend much more time on it; but you 
take Yoiitsey's story itself, as to how the murder was committed, and 
on the very face cf it, you are bound to say it is untre. You are 
com.pelled to discover its falsity. 

Col. Campbell said that it did not matter now whether Howard, or 
Youtsey killed Goebel, that I am guilty, if I can be criminally con- 



60 

nected with either of them; that we can take which ever horn of the 
dilemma we like. But won't you admit Col. Campbell, that if Youtsey 
has lied against Howard that he is likely to lie against me? 

Youtsey says that an unknown man came with a letter and 
knocked on his office door a few minutes before Goebel was shot and 
said, "My name is Howard." Youtsey testified that he said his name 
was Youtsey. 

A lovely and attractive young lady. Miss Annie Wiest, who was 
in an adjoining room to Youtsey's little ofllce, said that none of these 
things occurred. Howard said that none of them occurred. Is Yout- 
sey's word worth more with you than the sworn statements of Jim 
Howard and Miss Annie Wiest? 

They had never seen each other before. Howard was a 
stranger in Frankfort. Nobody tells how Howard ever got from the 
Frankfort depot to Youtsey's office. It is a wonder that the prosecu- 
tion didn't have some man like Cecil to say that he met Howard down 
at the depot and took him up to Youtsey's office; but that is a link in 
' the chain of the testimony for the prosecution that is missing. How- 
ard is virtually an unknown man in Frankfort and he goes to the door 
of an office in the Executive building and knocks and a man opens the 
door, and he presents that man a letter. What do you think of it? 
They introduce themselves and they talk no further. They go to 
the glass door to the private office of the Secretary of State. Youtsey 
goes around through the reception room and admits Howard to my 
private office. Up to that time nothing is said by Howard about why 
he is down there. No conversation has ever taken place as to what the 
object of his missipn is. What do you think of it? Youtsey says that 
he .told Howard after he got into the room that the plan was to kill 
Mr. Goebel from the window. 

Is it not a wonder that Howard did not ask him why he was 
standing him under the stairway, and what was the necessity for him 
going under the stairway if he saw anybody, and what was the. reason 
for all that secrecy? Is it not a wonder that Howard did not say to 
Youtsey, "I've got a letter from Taylor saying for me to report to 
you. What does he want?" Taylor was certainly not fool enough to 
tell Howard in a letter that he wanted him to kill Goebel. Youtsey 
says that he did not tell Howard anything about what was wanted 
with him until he got him in the room and then he told him that the 
plan was to kill Mr. Goebel as he came up on the sidewalk. What do 
you think of it? He says that Howard picked up the gun, and took his 
bearing, and everything was proper and that he was almost ready to 
pull the trigger before the thought struck Howard, "What am I to get 
for this." What do you think of it? Youtsey said you can get anything 
you want? "I want a pardon for blowing down old George Baker," 
says Jim. "That is a mighty small thing to ask," says Youtsey. "That 



61 

is all I want," says Jim. Think about it, men! Do you suppose Jim 
Howard is such a fool as to come down to Frankfort and put himself 
into the office of the Secretary of State and blow down the Democratic 
leader of the State for the purpose of getting a pardon for the blowing 
down of a man up in Clay county, when eleven of the jurymen on his 
second trial wanted' to give him his liberty for avenginr- the assassi- 
nation of his brother? Youtsey says that is all Howard wauted. 
Nothing is said about a pardon from Gov. Taylor for the killing of 
Mr. Goebel. Nothing is said about that. And no application has ever 
been made for a pardon so fas as that is concerned and none has been 
granted, if the testimony of the Commonwealth can be relied upon. 

Do you believe Jim Howard would walk into "the most dangerous 
trap" he ever saw and blow down the Democratic leader cf the State 
and get himself into a greater trouble than that he was already in 
up in Clay county and want nothing for it, except to get out of the 
trouble in Clay? Do you think that reasonable? Howard said to Yout- 
sey, so Youtsey says, "If any trouble comes of my killing Goebel we 
will exchange aflidavits." Why the necessity of exchanging affidavits? 
Why did't Youtsey say to Howard: "Never trouble yo'irself a'uout 
affidavits. You have no use for an affidavit in this case? There is 
never going to be any trials in this matter. Governor Taylor s going 
to parducn us all." Why didn't Youtsey say that to Howard when How- 
ard suggested the making of affidavits? My God, men, Howard down 
there in the commission of a crime ten fold greater than the one he 
was charged with up in Clay county, and all he wanted was a pardon 
for the blowing down of George Baker up in Clay county! That is the 
only way that Youtsey could explain why he gave that affidavit that 
Howard was innocent. That is the explanation. Youtsey felt called 
on to say why he has given that affidavit. What else? Youtsey says 
that Howard laid out a number of big horse pistols on the sill of the 
window and said: "When I shoot Mr. Goebel, I am going to fire a dozen 
shots from all these pistols and am going to make them believe there 
are a dozen men here." That is the way the prosecution has of ex- 
plaining the additional shots. What could have been >Iowar !'s idea for 
that? What could have been Howard's idea for calling attention to 
the place from which the fatal shot was fired by firing f:om his pistols 
four or five more phots in there? Is it a silly proposition, a non^^ensical 
proposition. Then you say how were the shots fired? I say I don't 
know anything fibcut it; but if the testimony of 'he prcsecuticn can be 
relied upon it looks very much like Youtsey fireti those pistol shots 
on the way to the basement of the Executive Building, after firing the 
fatal shot which resulted in the death of Senator Goebel. George 
Barnr-s tells you that he smelled smoke in the haUway of the Executive 
Building. Smoke always goes up, never down. It might have come 
up the steps into the hallway of the Executive Building. The truth 



62 

is, Youtsey did have a pistol in liis hand when he came around through 
the basement back into the Governor's* office. I say I do not know any- 
thing about these things, but reason dictates that it must have been 
that way. 

Then there is another thing about Youtsey's story, that brands 
it as a falsehood. Youtsey says Howard recognized Goebel down at 
the gate and Youtsey says he ran out of the room. If Howard recog- 
nized Goebel at the gate, Howard knew Goebel and it was not neces- 
sary fcr Youtsey to stay in tht room to point him out. If Youtsey did 
not fire the fatal shot himself, why is it, pray tell me, that he didn't 
step ever intd the Auditor's office or into the reception room and 
be with a number of individuals who could swear that he did not fire 
the fatal shot that resulted in the death of Senator Goebel? Why 
didn't he do that if he didn't fire the fatal shot himself? Why is it 
that after the fatal shot was fired, Youtsey says he became panic- 
stricken and ran dov/n through the basement into the barber shop 
and into the hands and presence of those who opposed him politically? 
What was the necessity for Youtsey to be scared if everybody in 
the Executive Building was implicated in the murder of Senator 
Goebel? Why did he run into the bosom of his foes Instead of into 
the bosom cf his friends? Why does he run so much from those in 
the Executive Building, if they are his friends, and if they indorsed the 
murder of Senator Goebel? Think about it, gentlemen. 

What means all this talk about smokeless powder, if Howard 
fired out of the room a number of pistol shots, with ordinary black 
powder, as Youtsey says he did? Why was it necessary for Taylor, 
on the 26th cf January, to dictate a letter to Youtsey to be sent to 
Jim Howard, some 200 miles away, to come to Frankfort for the pur- 
pose of killing Goebel, when Hockersmith, and Johnson and Youtsey 
were daily seeking and opportunity to kill Goebel, if Youtsey can be 
believed? Why the necessity of sending after Jim Howard to come 
and •■ .1 Ci civ:-!, if the whole State House sqr.are waft filled with 
desperate mountain assasins? That is what the prosecution claims, 
and yet out cf all the bad mountain men in Frankfort, none were 
bad enough to kill Mr. Goebel, and Howard had to be sent for, if the 
prosecution can be relied upon. Why didn't Taylor send a messenger 
r.fter Howard mr^ttad of sending a letter; taht lettf:' mi.t;ht ppeak in 
thunder toiies a.uainst him some time? The reasoii why the letter idea 
was relied upon by the prosecution in preference to the messenger idea, 
is that the falsity of the messenger idea could be exposed. The mes- 
senger would have been compelled to have road on trains, stopped 
at hotels and come into contact with people. But no such opportunity 
was given the cefense to expose the letter idea. Many thousands of 
letters pass through the hands of the postal authorities daily. None 
of them could testify with any degree of accuracy, whether Taylor 



63 

wrote to Howard on the 26th of January or Howard wrote Taylor, or 
neither to the other. Youtsey said that he took the letter from Taylor 
to Howard down m short-hand and transcribed it and gave it to Tay- 
lor. He did not give his short-hand notes to Taylor. "Where are^ his 
short-hand notps containing this letter? Why have they never teen 
produced in Court? The production of the shorz-hand note>s .would be 
evidence that the letter was written. Where are they? Echo an^- 
swers where? 

Gentlemen of the jury, I would like to call your attention to a 
great many more things concerning Henry E. Youtsey, but I shall 
weary your patience with but a few more of them. I want to call 
your attention to this agreement, which was made down at Louisville 
between Henry. E. Youtsey and myself, , and give you my reasons, for 
doing that, and I ask you to put yourselves in my place and see ^tiat 
you would have done under like circumstances. Suppose, Mr. Booth, 
that the prosecution' in this case had charged you with the murder of 
Mr. Goebel, as they have me charged, and that you were exactly in 
my place. Suppose that it had long been the contention of the prose- 
cution that the shot which murdered Senator Goebel had. been i^ired 

■ from your office as they claim it was fired from mine. Suppose as a 
matter of fact that Henry E. 'Youtsey was seen to run down the s-tair- 
way and 'through the basement immediately after the fatal shot fWas 
fired; and' suppose it was the claim^of the prosecution that you had 

/given Henry E. YotitseB^ a key to the office for the purpose of having 
the mur-der committed from > there. They had convicted yoiji on 
two former trials on that plea. You had not done it, as it turns 
out now in this cas.e' neither myself nor my brother gave Youtsey the 
key to enter that office o|i the 30th of January, if . t^e prosecutionj can 
be relied upon; but,^^ suppose they, were pretending ypu; had done (that 
at. the time y<ju got^ the agreement from Youtsey,, and- had on former 
occasions asked that you be hung for doing that very thing, Suppose 
it was a known fact thafe within a few hours after Youtsey had been 
arrested he had made a confession in the case which was false; ^that 
he had implicated innocent men; that he' had told Artljur 'Goebel.rthat 
Berry Howard and "'Tallow Dick" Combs-were in the room, and, ^rely- 
ing upon the truth of his statements, -: (Mr. Goebel was trying to gpt at 
the men who/had killed his brother, andj I don't blame hjm for that, 

V neither fcdoes anybody else),' but suppose Youtsey ih^id done that,j and 
innocent meii had been dragged into ithe matter byi reason of yout- 
sey's lies: ' • : ; •: ; ■ ,■.■■. , i ., 

Suppose, when your trial camfe up in 190Q, that there were day$ and 
days, that! Youtsey was trying to make a deal withr the Common- 
wealth's attorneys and the p.roseeut.ioh for immunity, if he' would tes- 
tify. Suppose that deal was almost consummated at one time. Suppose 
that when Youtsey'soWn trial cam e up that, instead of ' Youtsey testi- 



64 

fying in his own behalf, that he had conniption fits, and lay on a 
cot, apparently unconscious, for days during his trial. Suppose all 
these' things, and suppose that after he got down to Louisville he 
gave up his fight and said he was not going to carry his case any 
further. He had contended to you all the way through that he was 
innocent; that he knew nothing about the murder of Mr. Goebel; that 
he did net know anything about where the shot was fired from, nor 
v/ho fired them; that he did not know anything about it at all. Sup- 
•pcse he had made these statements to you, as he had made them to me, 
•and after he got down to Louisville, he said: "I am going to give up my 
fight; I am going to the penitentiary for life. I am not guilty, but I 
am not going to risk my life any more." Suppose you knew that he 
was going down there into that living hell, the penitentiary of this 
State, and suppose you knew that the prosecution claimed that Yout- 
sey was the key to the conspiracy and that he could unravel every- 
thing. Suppose you knew he could easily implicate you by saying he 
had gotten a key from you to get into your office. He didn't do it, and 
it turns out now that, as against me, he didn't do that. But how easily 
he could have said he did get it, and how dangerous to you such a 
statement would have been. Suppose you suggested *o him: "Youtsey 
y&u are going down to the penitentiary. In all probability they will 
make it pretty hard for you and I would like for you to sign a state- 
ment whicli is true that you never had any connection with me so far 
as the killing of Mr. Goebel was concerned. Youtsey says: "All right, 
I will do it; I will sign the afiidavit. I signed an affidavit for Jim 
Howard a few days ago and I am perfectly willing to sign yours. Go 
draw it up." And suppose you do go and draw it up and he says: "I 
don't believe I will sign it until I consult my attorneys, and whatever 
my attorneys say about it is all right." Suppose he writes up to L. G. 
Crawford, his half brother, who defended him, and his half brother 
knew all of his secrets, knew that he knew nothing against you, and 
his half brother agreed that he could sign and swear to the affidavit 
and his half brother sent it back to him for him to sign and after he 
got it back he says: "I won't sign that paper." Youtsey thinks in 
his mind: "I have been sidetracking the prcsecution all the way 
through. I thought I had them sidetracked before they arrested me, 
and I have sidetracked them into the prosecution of innocent men, 
Dick Combs and Berry Howard. I had a conniption fit and sidetracked 
the jury. I am as great an actor as Booth ever was. It may be that 
when I get to the pentitentiary I may want to get out or get an easy 
job in there." Suppose he didn't know anything against you. You are 
innocent, but what would you do? Would you not try to get an affi- 
davit from Youtsey exculpating you, even though he did not know 
anything against you, when most of the testimony against you was al- 
leged statements of alPeged conspirators, swearing for immunity? That 



fi5 

is what I did, but he v/ould not sign the aiBdavit unless I would agree 
that he (Youtsey) would waive the truth or falsity of w^hat he was to 
swear to, and and I refused to take it under those terms for a few 
days; I didn't want it thart way; I wanted a clear cut affidavit without 
the waiving of anything; but I could not get it; Youtsey would not 
give it to me, but he said if you will let me write that agreement here 
i will sign the affidavit, and he writes this agreement: 

"This agreement ,made and entered into this 26th day of January, 
1901, by and between Caleb Powers, now under conviction as a con- 
spirator, and Henry E. Youtsey, under conviction as a principal in the 
murder of Gov. Goebel. 

"Witnesseth, that for the purpose only of enabling the said Pow^ 
to clear himself of all connection with said murder, the said Youtsey 
agrees to, and does, sign and swear to the following affidavit, waiving 
its truth or falsity." 

I do not waive anything. I do not agree to waive anything. Yout- 
sey was the man who was waiving the truth or falsity of that affldarlt, 
and not me. I thought it would be ttetter for me to get an affidivat 
from Youtsey of that character than to get none a.t all. I may have 
made a mistake about it. All people in this country do make mis- 
takes, but this was my notion about it: That if Youtsey signed thte 
affidavit and ever turned up in Court to testify against me, as it was 
said by everybody that he would some time become a star witneea, 
I thought it better to have Youtsey swearing on both sides of the 
case. I could show if he ever did swear at any time that I was guilty, 
that at another time he swore I was innocent, and no jury can believe 
a man who swears on both sides. That was my idea and those are the 
reasons why I took the affidavit under those conditions. I may h»T» 
made a mistake. We are all sh(Mt-sighted, weak human beings, and all 
liable to err and I may have made that mistake, but I don't think I 
did. I did not think I was making a mistake then; I do not think it 
now. Youtsey is not the only man &-om whom I have gotten state- 
ments, before they left the Georgetown and jails for the penitentiary. 
Jim Jackson, Bob Bronhom, Riley, Binkley, Burley and many ethers 
have given me statements before leaving to the effect that I had not 
said anythiag in their presence while in jail even tending to show that 
I had he remotest knowledge of the killing of Goebel. I knew that 
these men were going to a living tomb and I did not know but what 
some of them might be induced to testify agaiost me in the hope of 
getting out. I thought tlie same think about Youtsey, and took his 
statement. I was guarding againat possible perjury. 

New, a few more things in regard to Youtsey. Mr. Hendricfcs 
claimed that when Youtsey was at my office window with a gun on 
Saturday, January 2Tth, just after the Berry-VanMeter contest, that 
I was trying to get Youtsey in a compromising position; that I was 



66 

trying to manufacture evidence for myself; that I was a Dr. Jekyll 
and a Mr. Hyde; that I did not care what testimony they had against 
Youtsey; that I expected to be able to say In the future, if I needed 
to say it, that I advised Youtsey against violence and bloodshed and 
all that kind of business; and that I went and got McKenzie Todd 
to get him to talk to Youtsey, not for the purpose of preventing 
Youtsey from doing violence, but for the purpose of manufacturing 
testimony for myself. Why, if the claims of these gentlemen can be 
relied upon, I was the last man in all the world to need testimony, 
because it is their contention that the killing of Mr. Goebel was going 
to settle the contest and give the Republicans their offices. If that 
contention upon the part of the prosecution is true, I am the last man 
in all the State of Kentucky to need testimony. And from another 
standpoint, do you think I would go into the thing if I thought I would 
need testimony or that I was ever going to be called up in Court about 
it? If I was ever going to be called up in Court about it I would 
lose my office, the very thing for which I was contending, and for 
the purpose of holding which, these gentlemen allege I entered into 
a conspiracy to murder Goebel. They say I was acting a double part 
when I went to my office, where I had a right to go, and where duty 
called me. I happened to find Youtsey in there. He was there with- 
out my permission or authority, if his own testimony can be believed. 
I said to him: "What are you doing at that window with a gun?" 
What ought I to have said to him? And when he didn't give me the 
satisfaction I demanded, I went to get somebody to talk to him. I 
found Todd. Counsel for the prosecution says I ought to have kicked 
him out of my office. 1 answer it has never been my custom in life to 
try to control men by brute force, and I simply went and got Mack 
Todd to talk to him and he did go in and talk to him. 

Why, if it were a conspiracy for Henry Youtsey to be at my win- 
dow with a gun, why was it not another conspiracy for him to have 
been at another office window with a gun? If it was a conspiracy on 
my part to happen to see Henry Youtsey at my private office window 
with a gun, why was it not a conspiracy on the part of Mack Todd and 
George Hemphill and these other people who happened to see Youtsey 
at another office window with a gun? Is it more of a crime on my 
part to have seen him at one window with a gun than it was for Todd 
and Day and Stone and Hemphill and others to have happened to 
have seen him at another window with a gun? None of these men 
ever went and got anybody to talk to Youtsey in order that he might 
be dissuaded from his rashness. None of them has ever been charged 
with the murder of Senator Goebel, or with procuring Youtsey to kill 
Senator Goebel. I did get McKenzie Todd to dissuade Youtsey 
from indiscreet conduct. Col. Hendricks, in trying to convince the jury 
and the country that I am guilty, said: "If Powers is not guilty, why 



67 

-was he indicted? Nobody has ever heard of Day, John S. Sweeney, 
€lifton J. Pratt, John Burke and other State officials, who were on the 
same ticket with Powers, being indicted?" Yes; that is true, and it is 
further true that Youtsey was the private stenographer of Rev. John 
-S. Sweeney and got the rifle out of the vault of his office with which 
'Goebel is alleged to have been killed. It is further true that Youtsey, 
•from a desk in the Auditor's office, was ordering smokeless powde* 
cartridges and having talks with Dr. Johnson and entering into con- 
spiracies with the negro, Hockersmith, to kill Goebel, and sayinlg to 
Day that if he had $300 he could settle the contest. Nobody ever 
heard of Rev. Sweeney advising with Youtsey. Youtsey said to John 
Rlcketts in the office of Lucas Moore, Commissioner of Agriculture, 
that his job depended on Goebel's death. It was there where Yout- 
sey said to Culton that he had the slickest scheme yet to kill Goebel. 
It was there where all the guns were stacked. Nobody has ever heard 
of Lucas Moore being charged with the murder of Mr. Goebel. Nobody 
has ever heard of Sweeney, or Pratt, or Burke, or Throckmorton, or 
Day, or any of the rest of the State officials trying to put on foot a 
•Goebel. I did that. Does that make me more guilty than they? None 
of them ever employed J. B. Mathews and sent him to see Miss Weist, 
who was in adjoining rooms to Youtsey, when the murder occurred, 
and see what she knew about his condition. I did that. Does that 
make me more guilty than they? None of them went to John and 
William Sweeney, Jr., and Grant Roberts, who were employed in the 
same office with Youtsey, and who were likely to know of his conduct 
and actions, and say to them: "Youtsey's actions have been suspicious. 
I think the guilty connected with the murder of Mr. Goebel should 
be exposed." I did that. Is such conduct as that proof of my guilt, 
and proof of their innocence? None of them ever said to J. B. Mathews 
and McKenzie Todd and ethers, that he felt that a full and complete 
investigation should be made of Goebel's murder. I did that. Does 
that make me more guilty than they? None of them ever called In 
Detective Griffin, of Somerset, Kentucky, at the instance of J. B. 
Mathews and George Hemphill, and put him to work on the case, 
under the assurance that he was an honest dectective and would let 
the facts remain as he found them. I did that. Is that proof of my 
^uilt? None of them tried to get the Louisville defense committee, 
through counsel, to set apart a portion of that money to pay detec- 
tives to unearth the murderer of Mr. Goebel. I did that. Is that 
a. circumstance against me? None of them, failing in that, said to 
Detective L. R. Griffin, to go ahead with the work, expose the guilty, 
if he could, and get his pay from the Reward Commission. I did that. 
Will you find me guilty for doing that? 

None of them ever sent J. B. Mathews to Indianapolis Ind., to see 
Charles Finley and see if he knew anything about the two missiuK 



keys to the glass door of the private office of the Secretary of State, 
that they might know whether or not they were used in connection 
with Goebel's murder. I did that. None of them ever went to Gov. 
W. O. Bradley and Judge Yost and said to them, "We have been inves- 
tigating the oGebel murder, and that they believed that they would 
go and lay before Mr. Franklin, the Commonwealth's Attorney, all 
the facts in their possessiion, to the end that the guilty might be 
exposed and apprehended. I did that. And yet Col. Hendrick asked: 
"Why did they charge me with the Goebel murder and did not charge 
to other State officials?" I am sure that none of the State officials 
he named had the remotest connection with Goebel's murder, but 
noTie of them are more innocent than I. So for as the testimony 
appears, McKenzie Todd and myself are the only ones who tried to 
dissuade Youtsey from his rashness before Goebel was killed and 
Todd did that on two occasions at my instance, once on the Saturday 
before Goebel was killed, when Youtsey was in my private office with 
a gun, and once on the Monday morning before the killing in the 
hallway of the Executive building. Both McKenzie Todd and 
myself testified to these things. No Republican official at Frankfort, 
so far as the testimony appears, spent his means in trying to expose 
Goebel's murderers. I did that, and yet they say I am guilty. If 
every man should be 'indicted before whom Youtsey did an indiscreet 
act, why don't you indict Walter Day, McKenzie Todd, George Hemp- 
hill, S. B. Stone. R. N. Miller, John Ricketts, Grant Roberts, Frank 
Johnston and manay, many others? 

Whatever I do, and wherever I go, and whatever I say, these men 
construe it against me. If I go up the road, they say I ought to have 
gone down. If I say one thing they say I ought to have said another. 
If I do one thing they say I ought to have done another. They say 
when Burton was in my office at that meeting making that incendiary 
speech and I called him down and said, if violence is to be contem- 
plated, and, if this meeting has for its object the murder of anybody, 
I propose to withdraw from this meeting and have nothing further 
to do with it. Mr. Hendrick says the idea of Powers saying that he 
would withdraw and have nothing further to do with the meeting! 
The idea of Powers resigning his office! The ideaof Powers going 
home! He says it is a ridiculous proposition. What if I had done any- 
thing else on that occasion than what I did? What if I had come to 
the conclusion that the meeting was being held in my office and that 
the people who were assembled in that office occupied tne relations of 
one's guests and that I. therefore, should say nothing, even if they were 
indiscreet, what would the prosecution have said in that instance? They 
would have said that you endorsed Burton's conduct by not getting 
up and saying that you would not stand for anything of that kind. 
What if I had sat quietly by and said nothing? They would have said 



69 

that I endorsed every word that Burton said, and rejoiced at it in 
my heart, and when I did call him down; when I did tell him that I did 
not propose to be a party to such a thing as that, these men say that 
I was acting a double part and that I didn't mean it. It is be damned 
if you do, and be damned if you don't. Whatever road I take; wherever 
I go, th€se men say I am acting a double part. Mr. Hendrick said that 
because I testified on the witness stand with calmness and delibera- 
tion that I was swearing to lies. What if I had testified in any other 
way? What if I had been darting and scouring over that platform and 
jumping at every proposition? They would have said: "Of course 
he is guilty." Whatever I do, they ask you to find me guilty for it. 
Down in Louisville, when I am alleged to have said to Golden: "I have 
made a mistake in coming down here; let us get back to Frankfort on 
the first train — that was the 30th of January — they say that I said that 
because I had made a mistake by leaving Frankfort the day that 
Senator Goebel was killed, and that the thing to do was to return 
to Frankfort on the first train. What if I had remained in L®uis- 
ville, what would they have said? They would have said: "He was 
afraid to go back where the bloodshed, assassination and murder had 
been done in his absence." They say I am guilty because I left my 
olfice on the morning before Senator Goebel was killed and doubly 
guilty because I returned to it after he was killed. So, whatever I do, 
they ask you to convict me for it. After the shooting was over I began 
to make in vestigaticns as to who fired the fatal shot that resulted 
in the death of Senator Goebel, but I believe I am not permitted to 
speak as to that because the prosecution objected to that evidnce and 
it was sustaind. 

When Grant Roberts was put on the witness stand and the ques- 
tion was put to Roberts: "Is it not true that you had a talk with 
Caleb Powers in his office afer Senator Goebel was killed, and is it 
not true that he said to you on that occasion: 'They are claiming- 
this shot came from my office; I am satisfied it did not, but I want 
you to make all the investigations in your power to unearth the guilty 
and to unco\«?r the truth?'" and there came from the side of the 
prosecution a chorus of objections to Grant Roberts' answering that 
question. Why did they object to me showing I did what I could,, 
lent all the assistance 1 could, to unearth Goebel's murderer? Mr. 
Hendrick said yesterday that I had talked with Gov. Bradley ancJ 
Judge Yost about it. I did have a talk with Gov. Bradley and Judge 
Yost about going to Mr. Franklin and laying before him all the facts 
I had found out with reference to the killing of Mr. Goebel. They 
say I was acting a double part; that I was trying to take suspicion 
from myself, and when Mack Todd was put upon the witness stand 
and asked this question: "Todd, did you have any conversation with 
this defendant, after Mr. Goebel had been killed, in the hallway of 



■ "0 

the Executive Building, and did he say to you upon that occasion that 
they were claiming the shot came from his office, and I want you to 
they were claiming the shot came from his office, and that he wanted 
you to use all the power you could to ascertain the truth of it; that 
so far as he was concerned, that he had nothing to fear, and that he 
wanted a full investigation of the aflair?" There came a ohbrus of 
objections from the side of the prosecution. Why object; why do 
they keep it from you, that I did whatever I could to unearth the 
murderer of Senator Goebel, and that I employed Mathews to help 
run the murderer down? Why object to me exposing the guilty? If I 
had been implicated with Youtsey, I certainly would not have been 
trying to expose his guilt, because, in that event, I would be exposing 
my own guilt. Cecil said that on Monday night, before Goebel was 
killed, that I said that there was a fellow across the hall (meaning 
Youtsey) who wanted to kill Goebel the other day, and that I would 
not let him do it. because I was afraid to trust him. Youtsey said 
that 1 was telling him on the morning of the same day that I was not 
afraid to trust him, and was planning with him to have the shot fired 
from that office. Cecil testified that I was alone when 1 said that to 
him. Youtsey testified that I was alone when I said that to him. The 
testimony of the one contradicts the other. 

Cecil is under indictment, and is swearing for immunity. Youtsey 
is in the penitentiary of this State, and is trying to swear his way to 
liberty. TIp law challenges the testimony of them both, and says 
that it canuLt be believed unless it is corroborated. They contradict 
each other. McKenzie Todd, who was formerly a witness for the 
prosecution, told you that both he and I were trying to prevent Yout- 
sey from doing acts of violence the Saturday before Goebel was killed, 
and that on the same Monday morning, when Youtsey says I was 
endorsing murder, when I was alone with him, Todd tells you that 
both he and 1 were advising Youtsey against rashness, and that he 
did it at my instance. The testimony is that 1 happened to meet 
Youtsey in the hallway that morning, and that he waned in my office, 
and remembering what his conduct had been on the Saturday before, 
I went and got Todd to talk to him again. Todd knew him well. These 
were the only occasions I ever came in contact with outsey, except 
when I took the oath of office the first of January, 1900. I scarcely 
knew Youtsey. If Youtsey can be believed, he is the man who was 
seeking Goebel's death, not I. It was Youtsey, with Dr. Johnson, who 
first talked of the murder of Mr. Goebel. It was Youtsey who said 
that Johnson wanted to kill him from the very start, and that the 
start was when Johnson came before Youtsey to be sworn to an 
affidavit. It was Youtsey, with Johnson, who searched through a vacant 
room on the second floor of the Executive Building, hunting a place 
from which to kill Goebel. It was Youtsey, with Dr. Johnson, who 



'examined the hallway windows and doors of the executive building 
in search of a suitable place from which to fire the fatal shot. It was 
Youtsey, with Johnson, who examined the private office of the Secre- 
tary of State, when I was in the mountains of Kentucky, with the 
view of firing the fatal shot from there. It was Youtsey, with John- 
son, who decided that that affice was the place from which to fire 
the shot. It was Youtsey who ordered smokeless powder cartridges 
from Cincinnati, with which to kill Goebel, on the 22nd Of January, 
when I was in the mountains of Kentucky. It was Youtsey who told 
Johnson that the cartridges go with th,e gun after he had received 
them from Powell, Clements & Company, of Cincinnati. It was Yout- 
sey who stole a Marlin gun belonging to Grant Roberts from the vault 
in the Auditor's office, and carried it into his own little office, pre- 
paratory to killing Mr. Goebel. It was Youtsey who carried that gun 
Into my private office, when I was in the mountains of Kentucky, try- 
ing to get men to Come to Frankfort as witnesses before the contest 
Taoards. It was Youtsey who placed Johnson in that office in my 
absence, and tried to kill Senator Goebel. It was Youtsey, with John- 
son, who mapped out how the assassin should escape from that office 
after the fatal shot was fired. It was Youtsey, with Johnson, who 
planned that he should run down the basement and through the 
basjement and around and back into the hallway of the Executive 
Building. It was Youtsey who ran that route, following the firing the 
the fatal shot. It was Youtsey, with Johnson, who told Culton that he 
had the slickest scheme yet by which he could kill Senator Goebel; that 
he could kill him from the office of the Secretary of State and escape 
through the basement. It was Youtsey, with Johnson, who discussed 
a plan to kill Senator Goebel in his room at the Capital Hotel with 
nitroglycerine. It was Youtsey who would have favored that but for 
the fact that hiS' wife had some relatives boarding at the hotel. It 
was Youtsey who sought the negro Hockersmith to kill Goebel, after 
Ills and Johnson's plans had failed. It was Youtsey who took Hocker- 
smith into his private office and sought his services to kill Senator 
Goebel. It was Youtsey who took Hockersmith into the private office 
of the Secretary of State with a view of having Goebel killed from 
there, and in my absence. It was Youtsey who showed Hockersmith 
the gun and cartridges he had prepared with which to kill Goebel. 
It was Youtsey who was disappointed when Hockersmith failed to 
kill him. It was Youtsey who then set about trying to get some one 
•else to do it. It was Youtsey who told John Ricketts that his job 
depended on Goebel being killed and Taylor holding his seat. It was 
Youtsey who said that he had $100 to put up to that end. It was 
Youtsey who told Walter Day that if he had $300 he could settle the 
contest. It was Youtsey who made the proposition to some of the 
mountain men at Frankfort to kill Goebel. It was Youtsey who 



dreamed that he saw some of the mountain men kill Goebel. It yma 
Youtsey who had the killing of Goebel so much on his mind that he 
even dreamed about it at night. It was Youtsey who said that Howard 
knocked on Youtsey's private oflBce door on the morning of the 80th, 
but Miss Weist, a beautiful and attractive young woman who occupied 
an adjoining room to Youtsey, said that did not occur; that the door 
between her office and Youtsey's was open on that morning and that 
Youtsey was not in that office at all that morning, and that no one 
knocked on his office door. It was Youtsey who had advised the 
young lady to leave her office a few days before, because he said 
that trouble was going to come up. It was Youtsey who had his gun 
with him on that occasion. It was Youtsey who was sitting both at 
the reception room window and at a window in the private office of 
the Secretary of State with the window hoisted, the blinds pulled 
down and a Marlin gun across his lap. It was Youtsey who said ta 
Culton about the middle of January that he had a slick scheme to 
kill Goebel from the private office of the Secretary of State; that he 
had a key that would unlock the door of that office and that he could 
get in there any time he wanted to, by means of that key. It was Yout- 
sey who said that he did not get that ,key from either myself or my 
brother. It was Youtsey who said that he never did get any key from 
me, and that he never tried to get any key from my brother until the 
29th day of January, the day before Goebel was killed. It is Youtsey 
who says that he never did get the right key from my brother; that 
the one he got on the 29th of January failed to unlock the door. 

It was Youtsey who ran, panic-stricken, down the stairway and 
through the basement after Goebel was killed. It was Youtsey who 
said to S. S. Shepherd that if he had his way that the contest would 
•soon be settled. It was Youtsey who said that everybody was kicking 
on him killing Goebel, and that he would have to drop it. It was 
Youtsey who wanted an alibi after Goebel was killed. It was Youtsey 
who asked Culton if he could not place him up in the lobby of the . 
Legislature with Culton and swear that he was up there when Goebel 
was shot. It was Youtsey who refused to tell Frank Johnson where 
he was when Goebel as shot. It was Youtsey who wanted to send 
Grant Roberts $20 for his gun after Goebel was killed. It was Yout- 
sey who tried to buy John Mastin's gun before Goebel was killed, and 
intending to use it for the purpose of killing Goebel. 

It was Youtsey who began making confessions six hours after he 
was arrested. It was. Youtsey who told Arthur Goebel that he had 
let Dick Combs and Berry Howard into the private office of the Secre- 
tary of State just before Goebel was shot It was Youtsey who says 
he lied when he did this, but that he did it in order not to harrass 
Mr. Arthur Goebel's mind. It was Youtsey who, by lying to Arthur 
Goebel, had Berry Howard and Dick Combs arrested and indicted on 



73 

the charge of killing Senator Goebel. It was Youtsey who permitted 
Dick Combs to be dragged from jail to jail and to lie behind prison 
bars for many months. It was Youtsey who let Berry Howard be put 
upon trial for his life, and never breathed a word to the prosecution- 
that Berry Howard was an innocent man and that he had lied when 
he told Arthur Goebel that Berry Howard was in the private office 
just before the shooting. 

It M-as Youtsey who had conniption fits when, put upon trial for 
his life. It was Youtsey who saLd that he did that for the purpose of 
deceiving the Court, the jury and the country. It was Youtsey who 
said that, as a matter of fact, that he had no fit, but thought it was 
the best thing to do under the circumstances. It was Youtsey, who 
lay upon a cot during the most of his own trial, apparently uncon- 
scious of v^'hat was going on about him. It was Youtsey who always- 
maintained to his own dear wife that he was innocent of tne crime 
charged against him. It was Youtsey who refused to appeal his cas^e, 
and went to the pentitentiary for life. It was Youtsey who made an. 
affidavit before he went to the penitentiary that he had did not know 
and had not seen Jim Howard until long after Goebel had been killed,, 
and now swears he swore a lie upon that occasion. It was Youtsey 
who made an affidavit before he went to the penitentiary to the effect 
that he knew no circumstance, even remotely, to connect me with 
the killing of Senator Goebel. It is Youtsey who says that when he 
swore to that that he swore a lie. It was Youtsey who said that any- 
body would swear to a lie when he got into trouble and was trying to 
get out. It was Youtsey who was kept on bread and water for eight 
consecutive Sundays in the penitentiary of this State before he became- 
a witness in these cases. It was Youtsey who was put to firing a fur- 
nace in the hot days of July and August before he ever testified for- 
the Commcnwealth. It was Youtsey who testified that the Warden 
of the penitentiary' and others advised him to tell what he knew. It 
was Youtsey who wrote out a statement of what he said he knew 
and sent it to Judge Cantrill. It was Youtsey who burned that state- 
ment, together with his short-hand notes of it, when it was returned to 
him, because it was not satisfactory. 

It was, in all probability, Youtsey who failed to implicate me in 
that statement. It was Youtsey who told Col. Campbell in a state- 
ment a few hours after he was arrested that he never discussed with- 
me the killing of Goebel from my office. It is Youtsey who now says 
he lied about that. It is Youtsey who says that I agreed to leave my 
office door open for the purposes of letting murder be committed from 
there. It is Youtsey who says that the door leading from the reception 
room into my office was open on the morning of the 30th of January 
before Goebel was killed. It is Youtsey who is contradicted in that: 
By Ben Rowe, the janitor; R. N. Miller, a clerk in the reception room:. 



"4 

'Grant Roberts, the brother of an able newspaper editor of this State; 
J. A. Hartgrove, who was in the reception room and saw some one 
try to enter my private office thirty or forty minuts before Goebel was 
shot, but failed. It is Youtsey who contradicts Golden, who says he 
saw me lock that door from the inside and bolt it before leaving for 
Louisville on the morning of the 30th. It is Youtsey who is contra- 
dicted by Jim Howard, who says Youtsey did not let him into the 
private office on that day, and lastly, Youtsey is contradicted by my 
own testimony. 

It is Youtsey who is the alleged key to the alleged conspiracy. It 
is Youtsey who failed to tell us when and where the conspiracy was 
entered into to kill Goebel and who were present. It is Youtsey who 
connects nobody with tlie alleged conspiracy, except he talked to them 
alone. It is Youtsey who had an alleged private talk to my brother, and an 
unknown man to Youtsey, about the alleged wrong key to my office. It 
is Youtsey who had an alleged private talk to Jim Howard, an un- 
known man to Youtsey, about killing Senator Goebel. It is Youtsey, 
who had an alleged private talk to W. J. Davidson about getting into 
my office. It is Youtsey who meets this one here and that one there 
and has a private talk to them and connects them with the murder of 
Mr. Goebel. It is Youtsey who said he knew nothing incriminating 
against Charles Finley Although Finley Has loujly and long been 
denounced as a conspirator, it is Youtsey who never had but one 
talk with me about the murder of Mr. Goebel, and that was the day 
before Goebel was killed, if Ycutsey's own testimony can be believed. 
It is Youtsey who says that he had that talk with me when I was 
alone, and in that talk with him when I was alone that I agreed to 
be away from my office. It is Youtsey who says that I left my office 
on the morning of the 30th of January for the purpose of permitting 
murder to be committed from tnere. It is Youtsey who is contradicted 
in this by R. N. Miller. George W. Long, ex-State Treausurer; Walter 
Day, another ex-State Treasurer; J. Lon Butler, a trusted traveling 
salesman for a large wholesale house in Baltimore; E. U. Fordyce, 
Jim Frank Taylor and Ed Mentz, all reputable men, and also myself. 
It is Youtsey who said that I was away from my office on a sinister 
purpose, while all these ether men say that mj" trip to Louisville on 
that day was for the purpose of getting up another crowd of petitioners 
to come, mostly from Western Kentucky, to petition the Legislature. 

Is there a man on this jury who believes that I had the remotest 
connection with Henry E. Youtsey in so far as the killing of Senator 
Goebel was concerned. If there be one. let me bring this matter home 
to you by an illustration. Suppose, Mr. Layson, when you were coming 
down, the streets of Georgetown — coming here to serve on this jury — 
that you saw a young man sitting in front of one of these saloons 
liere, and he asked you to get him a drink. You knew nothing of 



the young man. You had seen him around town here once or twice- 
in your life. 

You did not know where his parents lived; you knew nothing of 
him or about him; he stopped you on the street and said to you: "Mr. 
Layson, I want a drink of whiskey. I want you to go in and buy it 
for me, or loan me the money with which I can buy it. I am dying 
of thirst; I have got no money and no friends here; but for the sake 
of my burning appetite and for me, I want you to loan me just one dime 
to get a drink;" and you say to him: "Young man, I cannot do it. 
To begin with, it is a violation of the law, for me to loan you any money 
for such a purpose. And if I. could lean it to you, without any infrac- 
tion of the law of this tow^n, I would not do it. You are a young man; 
upon the young men of this State and this Union depends its per- 
petuity and its progress. I never started any boy on the road to ruin; 
I cannot start you. Young man, listen to the adTise of an older head. 
Liquor contaminates everything that it touches. It unfits you for 
business; it degrades your manhood, undermines your vigor and lays 
waste your energies; it saps your vitality and looses for you the 
respect and confidence of your neighbors and friends; it breaks your 
mother's heart and blots out your attachments for home; it ruins your 
hopes and prospects for a bright and happy life; it hastens your 
father to a sad and immature grave; it brings tears down the cheeks 
of mothers and floods their hearts with misery and woe. Young man, 
you should not ask me to aid such an infamous cause; I cannot do it. 
I have some respect fojr my country's honor. Dearth and desolation 
are found in the wake of whiskey's course. It covers the land with 
misery and crime. It- will curse your existence here on earth and 
finally land you in Hell. Young man, 1 cannot do it." 

And, Mr. Booth here, who was with you coming down the streets, 
has stopped to wait for you. You go on to him, thinking about the re- 
quest of the young man. It strikes you that it would be a good idea for 
him to go back and talk to that fellow. He is about to do that which 
will take him on the road to ruin and make him a cursg to the country 
that he calls his home and. a disgrace and a dishonor to the State that 
we all love. I wish that you would go and talk to him. Mr. Booth 
goes. He. is actuated by the same feelings that actuated you. He 
enters into a conversation with the boy. He says that it will never 
do to drink; that it has slain too many reputatioH; that it has brought 
shame and despair and misery and vrant to too many homes; that it 
has been the father of too many crimes; that it does not stop at the 
havoc and ruin of the poor, but, like a vile and slimy serpent, it 
crawls, across the threshold of our fairest homes and leaves its desola- 
tion and ruin there. It creeps into our Courts and defiles the streams 
of justice; it. invi*^es famine and courts disaster. It won't do to 
drink, young man. and about that time, Mr. Layson, you have gone* 



back to where y.our neighbor has been talking to the young man. 
You hear him say that it will never do to drink, and to emphasise 
■what you have said before you again repeat, that is right young man, 
it will never do to drink. Time passes on; you are detained here in 
Court. You have been chosen to serve on this jury; you are here 
performing the obligaTions of citizenship. And after this trial is over; 
after these long days of waiting and suspense are at an end, with a 
consciousness of duty well performed; with the thought in your mind 
that this daysi" work, whatever your neighbors may temporarily think 
about it, will stand the test of time and vindicate your actions, and with 
the thought in your breast that if you have erred at all, it has been 
on the side of mercy and humanity, you go forth from this jury box 
and again be given your liberty and have the privilege to mix and 
mingle with your fellow-men without restraint and take your place 
again in the active battles of life, assuming its cares and sharing its 
burdens. 

Suppose, as you are leaving this town, you come across this 
young man on the street and he again asks you for more whiskey or 
the money with which to purchase it. You are wanting to get to your 
homes. You do not tarry long with him; you have given him advice 
before, but you feel like you owe it to your country to again advise 
him. You again ask Mr. Booth to advise with him, as he is better 
acquainted with him than you. And you say to Mr. Booth: "I wish 
you would go and talk to that young man again; he is yet wanting 
whiskey." And you go and talk to him, Mr. Booth, and the young 
man say« that is all right. "Then I will not drink if it is going to 
ruin me; I will let it alone." You gentlemen pass on to your homes. 
You think no more about the young man. Your mind and time are 
occupied with other matters. Weeks pass and suddenly, Mr. Layson, 
the Sheriff of your county comes with a warrant for your arrest. 
Maybe. you say you will give yourself up as did Jim Howard. May be 
you say that the Courts and politics and money and prejudice and 
evenythlng else is- against you and that you will stand no show to 
get a fair trial, and that you decide not to go. The Sheriff arrests 
j^ou on a warrant charging you with furnishing money to the young 
man, and lodges you in jail. You are carried before the Courts for 
trial. You find that the sentiments of the people are greatly aroused 
becanse of your alleged offense. They hate liquor in all its forms, 
and try to prevent it from contaminating the lives of the y.oiiths of 
the country. It is a fact that the young man got drunk soon after 
you came in contact with him. They charge you with furnishing him 
the money with which to get drunk. You were seen talking witli 
him a while before h© did get drunk. 

The country says that any man who will strike a fatal blow at the 
very foundation of society and our homes by giving our youths whiskey 



77 

sha;ll be severely dealt with. The newspapers of the State jump oa 
you as soon as you are arrested. The politicians of the country, seeing 
an opportunity to ride into office on the indignation of the people by 
denouncing you, have been proclaiming your infamy from every cross- 
roads in the land. Your case is called for trial. You are a liquor 
man. You find that you are to be tried exclusively by Prohibitionists. 
The Judge is a strong Prohibitionist. The prosecuting attorney and 
officers of the Court are opposed to your liquor views, and the whole 
country has been taught to hate you, not because of what you have 
committed, but because of what you are alleged to have committed. 
Your trial begins. The prosecution puts the young man on the wit- 
ness stand. He testifies that you had a private talk with him as you 
«ame here to Georgetown, and that while you did not exactly loan 
him the money with which to get the whiskey, that you left the saloon 
door ©pen and told him to help himself, and that he did enter the 
saloon, at your instance, and get drunk. This closes the calse against 
you. It is your time now to be heard. Yoa put Mr. Booth on the staad 
and he testifies that as you and he came to town to s>erve as jurora 
in this case that you did have a talk with this young man on the 
streets of Georgetown, and that after you had a talk with him that 
you did come to him and ask him to also have a talk with the young 
man. 

Mr. Booth testifies that he did go, in j^ursuance to your advice, 
and have a talk with the young man, and that he advise- him not to 
drink whiskey. He testified further that while he was talking with 
h.im that you, Mr. Layson, did come up and enter into a conversation 
between the young man and him, and that you did say to the young 
Hian that it will never do to drink. This is the testimony of Mr. 
Booth. He testified further that after your services as jurors were 
over, in this case, that both of you started to your homes and that you 
both again came in contact with this same young man. Mr. Booth 
testified that you came to him again and asked him to go and talk to 
this young man and adrise him not to drink, and he tesitifies further 
that the young man promised him that he would not drink. 

You go on the stand, Mr. Layson, in your own behalf, and you 
testify to substantially what Mr. Booth testified to; you say that the 
young man did not want to borrow from you some m<mey with which 
to buy whiskey and that you did nof toan it to him, nor did you tell 
him to go into Ihe saloon and get it. Yo« teil the jury, under your 
o€ith, that you did call Mr. Booth to come and to talk to the young 
man and advise him not to drink. You say to this jury that you felt 
that you were doing your Ckrrstian duty and your duty as a citizen. 
You tell the jury that jrou both passed oa and left the young man and 
«ame ob to this Coart and were detained here as a juror to try this 
case and that wben tbe trial was over and yoa were discharged from 



jury service that you again advised liim not to drinlv. You testify 
further that you again called on Mr. Booth to talk to this young maru 
and advise him to abstain from the use of all intoxicants. You say 
further that it is true that your are a farmer and that you raise corn 
and rye to sell and you testify that it is further true that the more- 
whiskey that is consumed the higher will be the price of your corn 
and rye, but that you were advising the young man in good faith not 
to drink. You testify further that you are a citizen of this county, 
and that you wanted it to be pure in morals, true in religion, loftier 
in its ideals or right and wrong. You testified that you would not, 
under any state of case, attempt to undermine the foundation stcmes 
of society and of your cotintry for the ' paltry sum of a few dollars 
and cents, and' you would not, Mr. Layson. This closes the case.for 
the defense. 

The attorneys for the prosecution address the jury against you.. 
They allege that if you did advisee the young man not to drink or. go 
into saloons that you did not mean it; that you had corn and rye; that 
the more whiskey is consumed, the greater will be the price of your 
corn and rye, and that is the thing in which you are interested. The 
testimony of the attorneys', Mr. Layson, is the only thing against you, 
and when the speeches' are all over the jury retires to the jury room 
here. They arte not in thfere Idng enough to read the indictment until 
a tap is h^ard on the door.'' They enter and a verdict comes: "We, -the 
jury, find the defendant guilty and' fix his punishment at hard, labor- 
for a period of his natural life, in the penitentiary in this State." - 

My 'God! Mr. Layson.' What emotions would fill your -brea'st when 
you heard the "verdict read. Read by your fellow-men; read by twelve 
citizens of ydur Own State, and that,' too, Mr.- Layson, vvhen you knew 
that yoit were innocent of the charge*- when you Inow-.that you did 
all that was required of you as a citizen to your country, and gave 
the young man the 'very best advice known td your head or heart. 
You did more; you called your neighbor ' and had him ^advise him. 
You not only did what' the morals, of your country- require, but you 
went further; you did more than ^that^ You ' fulftUed the Biblical 
injunction, that if your brother errfe, or' isi about to 'err, to put hini in 
the right, and -for that fatherly "and country-saving advice you have 
been branded as an en-6my to your'feountry and as a foe to mankind; 
as a dangerous element W our citi^ensh'ip. What would you think of a 
State that would so mistr'eat yo'ii? When ■'pei-ils come to our country, 
when dur flag is endangered, the country calls upon -you to defend? it; 
neither your profierty hor ybur life is spared-dn its defense and when^ 
perils come rf you, Mi-. LaS'Soni as In this case I have supposed, instfead 
of the State sind'country using its sti'cng'- arm-' to 'defend you, it uses- 
all of its' resources to oppress' yoii. ■ What would you think of it, Mr. 
Layscn? The- ccuHtry that wU not d'et^nd its defendors-is. a'disgmce' 



79 

to the world, and its flag a filthy rag that befouls the air througis 
which it waves. 

I ask you, Mr. Layson, how does your conduct differ in the case 
I have supposed from mine in dealing with Henry Youtsey? I saw 
the young man in my office. I do not know how came him there. He 
was in the reception room without authority or permission from any 
one, so far as I know, and as far as has been proven in this case. If 
he would go to one place without permission, he would go to another 
without permission He did got there without permission. That 
testimony is not contradicted by any testimony on the part of the 
prosecution. I saw him in the office with a gun. I went into my office, 
I went there; I had a right to go; went where my duty called me. I 
found him there. He had a gun. I asked him what he was doing with 
it. What should I have asked him? And when he did not give me the 
satisfaction I demanded, I went to get some one to talk to him who 
was better acqauinted with him than I was. I advised him for the 
best, as you did the young man, Mr. Layson, who wanted the money 
to buy the whiskey. I gave him the best advice I had. So did you in 
the case I have supposed. I could have talked to him myself and 
have let him have gone his way. So could you with the young man 
who v»'anted the whiskey. You thought it best to have some one else 
to talk to him, and you did have it done. If you had advised the 
young man to have gotten drunk and loaned him the money for that 
purpose, the prosecuting officer would have said: "Of course he is 
guilty. He says he loaned him the money for that purpose." And 
when you show that you not only did not loan him the money, but 
advised him not to drink, and prove it by Mr. Booth, then they say 
you are playing a double part; that you did not mean it. It is be 
damned if you do and be damned if you don't. And with me it is be 
damned if you do and be damned if you don't. 

Gentlement, I am a citizen of this State, and I should be treated as 
such, whether I am a Republican or a Democrat. Whether I was bom 
in the hills or in the plains, I am entitled to justice at the hands of 
my fellow citizens. I am a citizen of thiS' country, and citizenship 
not only means that a man should be obedient to the law and have 
due regard for the rights of others, promote the welfare and well- 
being of our neighbors and in times of peril give our property and 
our lives for our country. Citzenship means more than that, gentle- 
men; it means that this country shall protect us in all the rights of 
citizenship, which the constitution of this country guarantees to us. 
It would be a poor country, indeed, that has the right to demand of its 
citizens their property and their lives" in times of its own perils and 
when perils come to one o5f its own citizens, to turn its back upon 
him, and even lends a hand in his oppression. I am entitled to a fair 
trial, gentlemen; I am entitled to justice at your hands. 



80 

If testimony can be believed; if reason can be relied upon, I wa» 
not in a conspiracy with Henry E. Youtsey. Then, gentlemen, I am 
not guilty of that with which I am charged.* I did not know Holland 
Whittaker; I did not procure him to murder Mr. Goebel. I did not 
know Dick Combs; I could not have procured him to have murdered 
Mr. Goebel. I did not know Jim Howard; I had no communicatiou 
with him; I, therefore, could not have procured him to have killed 
Mr. Goebel. The unknown man, is no more. As an actual quantity, 
he is no more. The prosecution, by their present theory, has elimi- 
nated the unknown man from this case. I, therefore, did not con- 
spire with, or procure, any unknown man to have killed Mr. Goebel. 

Then, men, how can I be guilty under this indictment? How can 
you find me guilty? You cannot; you Avill not. With all the testi- 
mony of all the star witnesses swearing for money and immunity, 
there is no testimony against me in this case except circumstantial 
testimony, that character of testimonj' that always, or often, lies, and 
is always unreliable. Col. Campbell said in his opening argument 
that so far as he Is individually concerned, he would as soon convict 
me on circumstantial testimony as on any other classi of testimony. 
Why, the whole world knows that circumstantial testimony is the 
most dangerous and the* most unreliable sort of testimony that can 
be introduced in a Court of justice. 

Let me illustrate the uncertainty and unreliability of circum- 
stantial testimony by a story I read once. The story is like this: A 
few years ago, up in a Vermont town, in Crittenden county, there hap- 
pened a very strange case. There lived in the suburbs of the quiet 
little village a rich old bachelor. He had devoted his life to the 
making of money and had" retired from an active business life to 
enjoy it in his own way. It was in everybody's mouth that he kept 
close about him, in his costly mansion, a vast deal of money. He 
kept within his palatial dwelling but one negro servant to attend his 
wants and needs. There they lived in solitude. It was after mid- 
night on one cold and bleak November day that the neighbors were 
aroused by the firing of pistols in the costly mansion. Fearing foul 
play, they rushed to the scen^ of the tragedy, for such it was. They 
found every window in the house locked and the doors barred and 
bolted. They heard groans on the inside of the house. They knew 
that the trouble was within. They bursfed the front door down and 
entered. They swept across the spacious hallway and rushed up on 
the second floor of the building to find, in the room always occupied 
by the old man, a sad scene. The white hairs of the old man welter- 
ing his own blood. His brains bespattered the floor, the walls and 
windows of his own room. A bullet had entered his' forehead; he was 
dead and his pistol lay grasped in his right hand. It had been dis"- 
charged m the affray; it was pointed towards the door of his own 



81 

room. Nearer the door of his room lay his colored servant, shot in 
face and head. It ^was founu that the bullet hole in the head of the 
colored servant was exactly ol the same caliber as that of the pistol 
fired by the master. This helped lO confirm the story, if it needed 
confirmation, that the servant was shot by his master while attempt- 
ing to rob him. The negro was not dead, but paralyzed by the blow. 
He was moaning and muttering inaudible sounds. His landlord's 
watch and jewelry lay near his hands, and a pistol that had been dis- 
charged twice lay near him to help tell the story of the old man's 
murder. It was several days before the negro servant was able to 
tallv. During that time, public opinion had been formed. The 
negro's in sensibility prevented him from being ~obbed without judge 
or jury. Everybody said that he had tried to rob his master and in 
the attempt had killed him. There was no other explanation of It. 
They were the only two in the house. The doors and windows were 
all barred and bolted when the neighbors gathered upon the scene. 
There the old man lay; the negro was shot in the room of the old man 
and had the jewelry of his master near his hands. As soon as the 
negro gained consciousness, he vainly pleaded his innocence. He said 
that he was not guilty. His protestations could not save him. He 
was indicted and was given a speedy hearing. The trial proceeded. 
He was convicted. He was convicted before the trial began. Public 
sentiment had convicted him. The jury brought in a verdict of guilty 
and said that his life should pay the penalty for his crime. Gentlemen, 
what if you had been on the jury, what would you have done? WTiat 
would your verdict have been? The poor, helpless prisoner pleaded his 
innocence. 

V/hat if I had been found shot and Goebel dead at the Capitol 
Hotel, in Frankfort, under these circumstances, and that I had said 
that I went there to see him on some business, what would your ver- 
dict have been? What would it have been in the case of the colored 
servant? The poor prisoner pleaded his innocence. That was the 
only thing he had on his side. He was no guilty, gentlemen. But his 
innocence did not save him. He was hanged. 

And, by and by, -the great searchlight, "Time," was turned in 
upon events. By and by the great unraveler of all mysteries began to 
solve this problem. The negro was dead; he had been judicially 
murdered; the jury had' taken from him that which they could not 
give back to him — his life. It was beyond human power to restore, 
when the world knew that he was not guilty. On his deathbed ,a 
a noted crook confessed to the murder of the old man, and told the 
circumstances surrounding it. A few months before the occurrenc, he ■ 
had come to the quiet fittle village, as a day laborer. He had learned 
from the gossip of the towns pgople the reputed wealth of the old 
bachelor. He determinedi to have his means. On the evening of the 



murder, a dark and cloudy day in November, he had slipped by stealk 
up the quiet lawn, under the somber timber and into the wide hallway 
and into one of its dark and neglected alcoves. There he remained 
until late evening came, dragging behind it the drapery of night. He 
was unobserved, as the house was a large and spacious one, with few- 
occupants — only two. The doors and windows of the old home had 
been barred and bolted by the faithful old coolred servant upon the 
approach of night, as had long been his custom. He went to his room 
thinking of no harm to his old master, whom he had so faithfully 
served, and for whom he had at all times been ready to give up his 
life. When the dead hours of night drug their heavy forms along, 
when innocent humanity was locked in the arms of refreshing sleep, 
th© burglar stole from his place of secret hiding, wound his course 
up the still stairway to the room of his victim. He crept into apart- 
ments owned by another, in search of gold, and found the white 
head of an old man lying upon a pillow of easy repose. He began to 
search for his jewelry and gold. The wakeful hours of old age was 
soon doisturbed. The burglar demanded the toil of his years, or his life. 
The enocunter soon began. Pistols were fired in quick succession. 
The faithful old colored man rushed to the scene of the difficulty, just 
in time to receive the shot of his master and fell, groaning, to the 
floor. The burglar dropped the jewelry he had gotten, fired a parting 
shot, dropped his pistol, and fled. The old man fell lifeless to the 
floor. The burglar returned to his secret hiding place unharmed. The 
neighbors battered down the front door and swept up to the room to 
the tragedy. In the hurry and excitement of the hour, the real mur- 
derer passed out unnoticed and went his way, uncaught, unsuspected' 
and unharmed. 

Gentlemen, the history of this world is full of such examples. 
And so our law-makers, in their wisdom, have said that before you 
can take a man's life or his liberty for life on circumstantial proof, 
the evidence introduced by the Commonwealth must be such that 
the crime cannot be accounted for on any other hypothesis than the 
guilt of the accused. 

Dreyfus was sent to Deril's Island on circumstantial testimony and 
perjured proof. The judiciary of France is disgraced forever on account 
of it. On circumstantial testimony, Samuel Arnold, an innocent man, 
was sent to Dry Tortugas for life for alleged complicity in the assas- 
sination of Abraham Lincoln. Dr. Mudd met a similar fate. On circum- 
stantial testimony and perjured proof, Mrs. Suratt, an innocent woman, 
was hung for alleged complicity in the assassination of Abraham 
Lincoln. America will never outlive it. Beware, men, of circum- 
stantial testimony. R is untrustworthy; it misleads; it lies; it 
deeeives. 



83 

MILITARY CONSPIRACY. 

If I did not procure some one of the five named principals to 
murder Senator Goebel, I could not be guilty, although there was a 
great deal of hot blood at Frankfort and elsewhere over the State 
during the contest, and, although the mountain crowd came to Frank- 
fort, and although the militia was called out. But since there has 
been so much said on these subjects, even during this trial, 
a discussion of them may not be amiss, and we will now 
come to a discussion of the military. I have tried, gentle- 
men, to take up the various claims of the prosecution and 
group the testimony bearing upon their claim that we might more 
clearly understand what foundation there is for such a claim. You 
know the prosecution has always said that the bringing of the moun- 
tain men to Frankfort was one part of the conspiracy to kill Senator 
Goebel. It is the claim of the Commonwealth that the militia was 
a part of the alleged conspiracy to kill Senator Goebel; that the part 
it was to play was to protect the men after they had done the work 
of killing Senator Goebel; that it was to protect the criminal, or crimi- 
nals, after the shot was fired from arrest or from violence; that that 
was the part to be played by the military; and that it played that 
part. This is the claim of the prosecution. All this evidence intro- 
duced by the Commonwealth to show that no one was allowed to 
pass into the Executive building after the shooting; all this testimony 
about the placing of guards at the gates of the Capitol square and 
doors of the Capital building; and all this testimony about requiring 
passes before any one could be admitted to the grounds, was for the 
purpose of showing that any one not friendly to the act of assassination, 
or those who indorsed that act, was not permitted to pass into the 
grounds. And all this evidence about keeping men at the arsenal 
for months before the killing of Senator Goebel, is for the purpose of 
showing that Taylor and Collier and others had in view the killing of 
Senator Goebel, and that they wanted the military to be ready to 
run down to the State House and protect those who were in the killing 
after it was done. 

I do not think that I have misstated the claims of the prosecutiom. 
Those engaged in the prosecution are in that claim like they are in 
others that they have made, they are either right or wrong. And if 
the militia was a part of any plan to kill Senator Goebel, the testi- 
mony ought to disclose the fact, and so far as I am individually con- 
cerned, gentlemen, I have never fully understood the force of the 
argument on the part of the prosecution that I should be convicted 
for the murder of Senator Goebel, if the military were used in con- 
nection with Senator Goebel's taking off. I was not a military ofiicer. 
I dida't order out the military after Senator Goebel was killed; I had 
»o «onn*ction with th« military in any way; I have had no connection 



^4 

with Gen. Collier, Col. Dickson, Col. Mengel or Col. Gray, who di<3 
have charge of the military, and if, as a matter of fact, the military 
were used, as is alleged by the prosecution, I cannot understand why 
that I should be held responsible for its use. 

But, gentlemen, was the military so used? What does the evidence 
disclose? There are a number of witnesses both on th part of the 
defense and the prosecution who testify that at least a part cf the 
military company was kept at the arsenal from the November election 
of '99 until Senator Goebel was killed; and there are a number of 
witnesses who testify that the militia came to the State House from 
within eight to fifteen minutes after Senator Goebel had been shot, 
while the witnesses for the defense say that it was from twenty to 
thirty-five minutes after Senator Goebel had been shot before the 
arrival of the military on the State House Square. And there are a 
number of witnesses who give various versions as to why the militia 
was called out at all, and the condition of affairs that existed at the 
time that they were called out. It is claimed by the prosecution that 
the militia was called out to protect the guilty from arrest. It is 
claimed by the defense that the militia was called to protect the build- 
ings and the occupants from mob violence. Let us look into those 
claims, gentlemen. 

You remember that McKenzie Todd was formerly one of the 
witnesses for the prosecution; he was in the reception room at the time 
the shot was fired. He told you that there was great excitement after 
the fatal shot had been fired; and that he, for one, was so afraid of 
mob violence that he actually left his post of duty and sought safety 
in flight. He told you that he left the Executive building and went 
to the home of Capt. John Davis. 

George L. Barnes was another witness in this case who was in 
the Executive building at the time the shot was fired. He tells you 
that he went immediately to the door of the Executive building and 
that he saw Mr. Bill Jett, John E. Miles and others on the State 
House yard and heard them saythat the thing to do was to blow up 
the Executive building and murder all of its occupants. He told you, 
too, that there was a great deal of excitement and a great many 
threats made against the occupants cf the building. 

R. N. Miller was an occupant of the reception room at the time 
the shot was fired. He said that the clerks were all excited. "Every- 
body was asking what was the matter. The people began to gather 
out in the streets; word was strated, I don't know how, that they 
were going to mob the inmates." 

Capt. Steve Sharpe, that gallant ex-Confederate, told you that 
the street in front of the Capital building was filled with a threatening 
and excited mob; that he went to the Executive building and tendered 
his services to Gov. Taylor for the purpose of preventing mob violence 



85 

to the occupants of the building if possible; and tliat he, at the In- 
stance of Gov. Taylor, gathered together as many men and guns as 
he could find for that purpose, and' did station them in the Executive 
building in order to prevent the threatened and threatening violence. 

Capt. Delia Walcott told you of threats to hang Taylor and all the 
Republican ofiicials. Chief Justice Jas. H. Hazlerigg and others told 
you of an excited crowd Being in the stretts. George Barnes told you 
that some of them had guns. 

DANGER OF MOB VIOLENCE. 

If there had been no testimony to the effect that there was great 
excitement and danger of mob violence you gentlemen would know 
that from your experience. The v/ildest excitement prevailed and the 
danger of mob violence was imminent. It is a matter of current 
history with which all are familiar that. Senator Blackburn and others, 
three days after Goebel had been shot, in a card to the Democrats 
of the State, pleaded with them not to resort to mob violence. 

Now, gentlemen, from the evidence in this c"ase, can you decide 
that the militia was a part of any conspiracy to murder Senator 
Goebel? The only evidence introduced on the part of the prosecution 
was to the effect that soldiers were kept at the arsenal; that they 
were there for months before the assassination of Senator Goebel, and 
that they were on the State House Square after the killing within eight 
to fifteen minutes, while the defense has proved to you beyond all 
question that the "all right" telegrams had no connection with the 
killing of Senator Goebel. Gen. Collier and Col. Grey and Col. Mengel 
all testify that the "all right" telegrams* were arranged between them 
on the 11th of January for Col. Grey and Col. Mengel, of the First 
Kentucjiy Regiment, to bring their regiment to Frankfort in the event 
of any disturbance of the public peace upon the receipt of the tele- 
gram "aH right." These three witnesses are not contradicted by a 
single witness on that' point. 

Mr. Todd, Mr. Miller, Mr. Barnes and Mr. Walcutt and others tell 
you that there was great excitement at the time Senator Goebel was 
killed and that threats were made to mob the occupants of the Exe- 
cutive building and to blow up same. Miller and Shepherd told you 
that Capt. Davis took an order from Gov. Taylor to Gen. Collier to call 
out the rhilitia for the purpose, as the order expressed it, to prevent 
the desctruction of property and the loss of human life. Collier tells 
you that he received that order. He tells you that he sent John Per- 
kins up to the arsenal to tell Capt. Walcutt to bring a portion of his 
soldiers to the State House and to leave a part of them there to pro- 
tect the arsenal. 

But why leave them there to protect the arsenal, gentlemen? 
It is the claim of the prosecution that the company was kept at the 
arsenal to be in readiness to protect those who were in the murder 



86 

of Senator Goebel. It has been the claim of the defense that they 
were kept there to protect the property of the arsenal and for the 
purpose of suppressing any disturbance that might occur in Frankfort, 
the storm center of political excitement at that time. When Senator 
Goebel was killed, part of the men was kept at the arsenal for the pur- 
pose of protecting the property and another part was taken to the 
State House to quell any riot that might be organized. 

If the militia was kept at the arsenal for the purpose of assist- 
■ ing in the assassination of Senator Goebel, as is claimed by the prose- 
cution, why were soldiers kept on guard duty at night at the arsenal 
for months before Senator Goeebel was killed? Why keep soldiers 
on guard at night at all? Nobody will contend that soldiers could be 
used in the night time for the purpose of protecting the assassins of 
Senator Goebel from arrest. Then why was there walking sentinels 
guarding the arsenal at night time? There could have been but one 
object, and that to protect the property of the arsenal from seizure as 
is claimed by the defense. There can be no doubt but that the arsenal 
was guarded in the night time by three reliefs of soldiers. Julian 
Kersey, a Commonwealth's witness told you that. Then the claim 
on the part of the defense that the soldiers were kept at the arsenal 
for the purpose of protecting the property is proven by witnesses for 
the Commonwealth. Now what about the other part of the claim of 
the defense that they were kept there to suppress any disorder that 
might arise and that they were called out immediately after the shoot- 
ing of Senator Goebel for the purpose of protecting the occupants 
and the attachees of the Capital buildings from mob violence. Let us 
see. Sam Shepherd told you that immediately after the shot was 
fired, he advised Taylor to call out the troops. Taylor, in his, deposi- 
tion told you th"at he issued such orders. R. N. Miller told you that 
Capt. John Davis carried those orders to Gen. Collier. Gen. Collier 
told you that he received those orders and that he sent John Perkins 
to the arsenal with orders to bring a part of the military company 
stationed there to the State House grounds. 

John Perkins tells you that ne carried those orders from Gen. 
Collier to Capt. Walcutt. Collier and John Perkins both tell you that 
Senator Goebel had been carried out of the State House grounds be- 
fore he left the State Plouse to deliver the message. Capt. Walcutt 
tells you that he received the message at the hands of John Perkins, 
the janitor, and that they took a number of soldiers that had been 
ordered out to the State House grounds and stationed them at the 
various gates and at the entrance to the various public buildings occu- 
pied by the Republican officials. 

There is a difference in time as to when the company at the arsen- 
al reached the State House grounds-. The prosecution attempted to 
make it appear that the company at the arsenal had received its or- 



87 

to be in readiness to march to the State House grounds and pro- 
*»ct those, who they claim, were concerned in the killing of Goebel, 
fc«jCore the shot had ever been fired; but there is no evidence upon that 
point, gentlemen, and if the prosecution is. right in their contention 
tbat the military company at the arsenal knew that Senator Goebel 
wa» going to be killed before he fas- killed, and was there in readiness 
to march to the State House grounds for the purpose of protecting 
those committing the murder, then those men in that military' com- 
pany, too, gentlemen, are guilty of the awful crime of murder; and I 
ask you, Mr. Franklin, why it is that these thirty men comprising the 
HMlitary company who were stationed at the arsenal at that time have 
Bot been indicted for complicity in the murder? 

They live in Franklin county, the county of your home. 
They are within a few hundred yards of your residence, and if they 
haji knowledge that Senator Goebel was going to be killed, and did, as 
& matter of fact, go to protect those who did the killing, they are as 
gtiilty in the eyes of the law as the man firing the shot, and why have 
tbey not been apprehended and convicted? 

That they have not is proof positive to my mind that so far as the 
militia at the arsenal is concerned, Mr. Franklin and these gentlemen, 
do not believe that they had aught to do with the killing of Senator 
Cioebel. And if the prosecution is right that the militia was to' be 
used for the purpose of protecting those who were guilty of the murder 
of Senator Goebel, from violence or arrest, then those who so used 
the militia should be held accountablee for their conduct. If one of 
the vast throng of men who are here in the Court-house, should step 
down on the street of Georgetown- and kill a man, it would not be 
fair or just, gentlemen, for you or I to be taken up and tried for the 
offense, and let the man who did the killing go free. 
WHY NOT INDICT OTHERS? 
If the militia was used for the purpose of protecting the one who 
killed Senator Goebel from arrest or from violence, then General 
Dan Collier, Col. J. K. Dixon, Col. C. C. Mengel and Col. Gray 
used the militia for that purpose. Collier was the Adjutant General 
of the State. He was in supreme command of all the forces of the 
^^te, subject to the orders of the Chief Executive. Collier ordered 
th* militia- from the arsenal to the State House after the killing of 
Senator Goebel, and got the troops on the ground, according to these 
g^itlemen, from with ten to fifteen minutes after the shooting. Collier 
sent out telegrams all over the State to the various military com- 
panies to come to Frankfort at once. In fact, the whole of the militia 
of the State was called out. He had arranged with Col. Gray and 
Col. Mengel of Louisville for them to bring all their forces, the troops, 
ammunition, arms and men upon the receipt of the telegram "All 
right." Col. Mengel tells you that Col. Gray and Gen. Collier met him 



88 

in Louisville and arranged with liim what "all right" meant and what 
he should do upon the receipt of such telegram. Then, of course, 
gentlemen, Col. Mengel and Col. Gray were also in the conspiracy to 
kill Senator Goebel, if the militia formed a part of that conspiracy, 
as these gentlemen claim. There is no escape from that conclusion. 

I have had nothing to do with the militia. I was not a military 
officer. And there is no proof in this record that I ever had aught to 
do with the militia, except the bringing of the mountain men to Frank- 
fort and a part of them were men who belonged to the military com- 
pany, but this was five days before Senator Goebel was killed, and 
the great mass of these men had gone back to their homes. I had 
nothing to do with the men at the arsenal. I had nothing to do with 
the ordering out of the troops. I took no part in the assembling of 
the. merii after the killing of Senator Goebel to the State House Square. 
Then if that was' a part of the conspiracy to kill Senator Goebel, it 
was a part of the conspiracy with which I had nothing to do, and it 
was' a part of the conspiracy, if a conspiracy it was, with which Gen- 
Collier, J. K. Dixon, Col. C. C. Mengel and Col. Gray did have to do. 
Not only those men, gentlemen, but every man who brought his mili- 
tary company to Frankfort to be used for that purpose. 

Then if the militia was a part of the conspiracy to kill Senator 
Goebel, then I ask you why, Mr. Franklin, you have not indicted those 
who had charge of the militia? Also the men at the arsenal? If the- 
use of the militia was a part of the plan by which the murder of Sena- 
tor Goebel was to be accomplished, then I ask you why have you not 
indicted the militia? Why have you not indicted General Collier 
and Col. Gray and Col. Dixon and Col. Mengel? I ask you 
why, Mr. Franklin. I want you not only to tell this jury why, but I 
ask you to tell this country why. Tell us why, Mr. Franklin, tell ua 
W'hy. I had nothing to do with the militia. And if the use of the mili- 
tia was a part of a plan to accomplish the murder of Senator Goebel, 
then I had nothing to do with that part. Then why did you indict me 
and let Gen. Collier and these other gentlemen escape? If these men 
were in a conspiracy to kill Senator Goebel then they ought to be pun- 
ished. Col. Dixon has walked the streets of Frankfort much from the 
day of the killing of Senator Goebel until this good day, living as your 
neighbor, sir, in your very town; he is living there now. As an honest 
man and an honest officer, whj' have you not apprehended and pun- 
ished him, if he is guilty of the murder of Senator Goebel? Gen. 
Collier has told you time and time again that if you wanted him, he 
would come to you, and save you any trouble in sending after him. 
If the militia were a part of a conspiracy to kill Senator Goebel, why 
have you not indicted him? Why have you not indicted Col. Gray and 
Col. Mengel? Will any one contend, seriously, that the soldiers were 
kept in the arsenal at Frankfort before the November election for 



S9 

the purpose of killing Mr. Goebel before it was known who was elected 
or who defeated; or kept there for the puropse of protecting those' 
to be engaged in killing off enough Republicans in the General Assem- 
bly to give the Democrats a majority, when it was not known that 
they would have a majority? 

By your own conduct, there are only one of the two conclusions 
that can be drawn. The militia was either not a part of the con- 
spiracy, or you, Mr. Franklin, have sat idly and unconcernedly by and 
witnessed vile conspirators murder one of your 'party associates, stalk 
over this land undisturbed by those whose s?rorn duty it is to prose- 
cute them. 

It is no answer to say that you will do it in the future. You 
know that the law in this State is that conspirators to commit murder 
can be indicted in any county in the State in which any part of the 
plan to murder was consummated. If the bringing of the mountain 
men to Frankfort was a part of the conspiracy to murder Senator 
Goebel, then the men who came to Frankfort could have been indicted 
in any county through which they came. They could have been in- 
dicted in Fayette county, or in Madison county, or in the county of 
Clark, or in any of those counties. If the militia were a part of the 
ccnspiraoy then Gray and Mengel could have been indicted in Louis- 
ville. Or they could have been indicted in Franklin county and you 
could have sent the cases to Bourbon and Woodford and Owen and 
the the adjoining judicial districts for trial. You have had terms 
of court upon terms of court in Franklin and Scott counties, in which 
to have tried them. Then you have confessed by your own conduct 
that the militia formed no part of the conspiracy to kill Senator 
Goebel; and if it did, gentlemen, I had nothing to do with the militia 
and should not be held responsible for the acts of some one else. 

You have not indicted the military officers and the conclusion 
must, therefore, be reached that the militia was not used by anybody 
for the purpose of protecting the one, or ones, repsonsible for the 
killing of Senator Goebel. 

PROPER USES OF MILITARY. 

Why is there such a thing as the militia of the State? What 
should.it be used for? You read of the militia being called out to 
protect human life here, and human life there; called out to prevent 
the destruction of property; called out to suppress riot and prevent 
bloodshed, that is what the militia is for gentlemen. That is the reason 
that you pay taxes to pay the salary of these gentlemen, who have 
charge of the militia of the State, its equipments and expenses. 

The defense claims that the State had been in a fever of ex- 
citement for many months. The defense claims that in every city, in 
every town, in every community and at every cross-roads of the 
Commonwealth that the people were stirred to their very depths. The 



90 

claim of the defense is that even before the killing of Senator Goebel 
that there had not existed such bitter feeling between neighbor and 
neighbor and between friend and friend since the late war as existed 
in this State prior to and following the killing of Senator Goebel. Our 
claim is, gentlemen, that the intensity of the feeling was such that it 
divided homes of this country; that father and son would not 
sleep under the same roof and that it divided and separated congrega- 
tion and pastor. Partners in business dissolved partnership. That 
is our claim. We say' that neighbor was arrayed against neighbor; 
and that wherever men met whose political opinions were not the 
same that there was always danger of an outburst. That the whole 
of Kentucky was like a powder house, ready to explode at any time 
and upon the least provocation. Our claim is that Frankfort was the 
storm center of all the angry passions of the State; that there the 
excitement was the greatest and the antagonism the sharpest; that 
there bitter feeling was the highest ;that there were two forces, one 
on the one side threatening to take forcible possession of the oflEices, 
and one on the other side saying that they should not do that. Every- 
body knows how near civil strife in the State, civil war in the State, 
was averted. 

Our contention is, gentlemen, that it was the duty of those who 
had charge of the militia of the State, to keep it in readiness at all 
times, to quell any disturbance that might arise. It was as much the 
duty of the militia to quell a disturbance that might have arisen be- 
tween the two political forces at Frankfort, as it was to have stopped 
any other disturbance that might have arisen anywhere else in the 
State. 

And if Taylor and Collier and others called out the militia for the 
purpose of keeping down mob violence as they claim, it was cer- 
tainly the duty of the men who had been placed to guard the gates, 
the doors and the entrances, to not let any one pass through the lines 
without a permit. You go to any camp of soldiers and you will find 
the whole guarded by walking sentinels, and all who enter must know 
the countersign, or have a written permit from the commanding 
officer. Any other arrangement would not be military. Go to West 
Point, go to Fort Thomas, go to the encampment of the State Guards 
of this State, and you will find that they all do it. In every war that 
this country has ever had, there was never a regiment of men, there 
was never a soldier camp that was not guarded in this way from the 
enemy, if it was well managed from a military point of view. 

That was what was done at Frankfort. The Commonwealth claims 
that the square was barricaded for the purpose of protecting the as- 
sassin from arrest, while the defense claims that it was for the pur- 
pose of preventing mob violence. So far as I am individually con- 
cerned, gentlemen, I do not know why it was done. I was not o 



91 

party to it, I had nothing to do with it; I am not responsible for it. 
But if the evidence and reason can be relied upon, the militia was 
called out to protect the occupants of the executive building from 
mob violence. Taylor did not do what I would have done. After the 
militia had been thrown around the State House yard I would not 
have let anybody, either in or out, until I had sent for some intimate 
friend of Senator Goebel and discussed with him the best means of 
bringing to justice the guilty; and I would have let as many city 
officials as there were in Frankfort, have had admission to those 
grounds, and would have rendered them every service within my 
power to have determined who the guilty were and helped to bring 
about their arrest. 

SOUGHT TO FIND ASSASSIN. 
After I got back to Frankfort from Louisville, I did what I could 
to investigate it. I sent J. B. Mathews, at my own expense, to Louis- 
ville to see Miss Weist, to see if she knew anything about the killing. 
Youtsey's conduct arCused my suspicion. I knew that her office joined 
his at the time of the tragedy. I learned that she was in her office. 
I wanted to see what she knew. I told Grant Roberts and the two 
Sweeney boys, who worked in the same office with Youtsey, to find 
out all they could' about his conduct and report to me. Would I have 
done that if I had been implicated with Henry Youtsey in the murder 
of Mr. Goebel? I toldi McKenzie Todd that I wanted a full investigation 
of the case. This was before I was arrested, and when suspicion rested 
upon my office. I told him the same after I was arrested. I told 
Mathews I wanted a full and complete investigation of the murder of 
Senator Goebel. I employed J. B. Mathews to run the assassin down. 
He tried it. He wanted assistance. He told ,George Hemphill and 
myself in my office before my arrest that Detective T. L. Griffin, of 
Somerset, was a trustworthy and reliable detective; that he would let 
the facts remain where he found them; that he would expose the guilty, 
and in so doing would shield and save the innocent. I agreed for 
Griffin to be called in. He was called in and put to work on the case. 
This was before my arrest; but after it was being claimed that the 
fatal shot came from my office. Griffin was told that I would try to 
get the Louisville defense committee, through my attorneys, to set 
apart a portion of the defense fund with which to pay for detective 
service. This was not accomplished, and Griffin was told to go ahead 
with his investigations and unearth the guilty, if possible, andfor his 
services rely, upon the reward offered by the Commonwealth for the 
conviction of the guilty. Griffin promised to do this. I had no money 
of my own with which to employ him. I did what I could to expose 
the guilty. I advised with Judge Yost and Gov. Bradley about going 
to the prosecutioti and telling them what I had found out and offer 
my assistance, but I was advised that I would be misunderstood. 



92 

Taylor did not do what you would have done. He might have 
acted differently in a cooler moment, and he might not. I do not 
know anything about that, but if he did wrong, in. that, or any other 
particular, am I to suffer for the wrongs of others? Am I to be held 
responsible for zozzz ot'ner man's ill judgment? Keep this one point 
in view, gentlemen; remember that I was not a military officer, and 
that there is no proof whatever in this whole record that tends to show 
that I had aught to do with he militia. I brought some of the com- 
panies of citizens from Eastern Kentucky, five aays before the killing 
of Senator Goebe,- but those had gone home and I did not have the 
remotest thing to do with surrounding the State House Square with 
the militia after the killing of Senator Goebel, and, herefore, gentle- 
men, could net have had the praise, if it was right; nor the blame, if 
it was wrong. 

But there is one thing, gentlemen, that must convince all sober- 
minded men that the surrounding of the State House with militia, after 
the shooting of Senator Goebel; the telegrams "all right," and the 
calling out of the militia after the killing of Senator Goebel, was no 
part of a conspiracy to murder him. You remember that Col. Gray 
and -Gen. Collier met and had a conference about the telegrams "all 
right;" at any rate. Col. Gray understood what to do when he received 
the telegrams "all right," and that was to take his men to Frankfort 
at once with all equipments. He did that. 

Then, if the calling out of the militia, after the killing of Senator 
Goebel, was a part of the plan to kill Senator Goebel, then Col. Gray 
was into that and undierstood the plan and acted in concert with the 
other military officers in getting the militia to Frankfort, and in re- 
sponse to the telegram, "all right." Then Col. Gray must have been 
a party to that part of tlie conspiracy. Col. Gray was, and is, so far as 
I know, a Democrat. He was one of Mr. Goebel's supporters. Then, 
you are asking us to believe thiat one of his own political friends 
entered into a plot to bring about his death. 

That, gentlemen, is not reasonable. The idea of any set of men 
taking a Goebel Democrat into a conspiracy to murder Goebel. This 
is proof positive, to my mind, gentlemen, that the militia formed no 
part of a plan to kill Senator Goebel. The fact that Col. Gray is a 
Goebel Democrat and the fact that Mr. Franklin has not indicted 
Collier and Dixon and Gray and Mengel and these other men who had 
charge of the militia is convincing evidence, to my mind, that Mr. 
Franklin does not believe that the use of the militia formed any part 
of a plan or plot to kill Senator Goebel, or he would have certainly 
indicted these men and have brought them to justice. 

And for whatever purpose the militia may have been used, I had 
nothing to do with the militia. Will you convict me for the deeds of 
others? No; you will not. You surely cannot. I beseech you to never 



93 

let it be recorded in the pages of Kentucky history, a State whose rec- 
ord is already black enough with crime, that a jury of that State, in 
the morning, of this new century, the best century in all this world's 
history, with all the achievements of the mighty past thrown at our 
feet, with all the deeds of noble manhood and splendid, womanhood 
to light our path to duty— let it be said, gentlemen, that in response 
to the wild clamor for revenge on the part of interested detectives, 
known perjurers, and blatant partisans, you were induced to rob a 
young Kentuckian of his good name, put the stripes of a felon around 
his limbs and hurry him off to a living death for life. And all this, 
gentlemen, with the eyes of a civilized world looking on. 
TRIAL WILL LIVE IN HISTORY. 

This trial, gentlemen, is not merely of to-day. It will live as long 
as our State's doings are read. This trial is not over when this jury 
is dismissed and you start for your, homes. So far as my individual 
liberty is concerned, that will have been settled. But at its conclusion 
will begin the trial of you. gentlemen, and this court, before the great 
bar of public opinion. Yea, that trial has already begun. And ulti- 
mately, gentlemen, the integrity of the courts of our State and their 
reputation for fair dealing will be determined in accordance with the 
merits of the case. The public, yea posterity, may have its deflections 
here and there in arriving at just conclusions; prejudice may, for a 
while, blind' the eyes of men; temporary interests may for a time warp 
their sensibilities and distort their judgment, but in the end their 
judgment will be clarified, and a just and impartial conclusion will be 
reached concerning tlie merits of this controversy. 

If you do not know the right of it; if you are net able to see the 
right of it; If you cannot be satisfied beyond all doubt that I am guilty, 
it. is your duty, under the law and under your oaths, to give me my 
liberty. You have sworn that you would do that. You cannot know 
that I am guilty, because I am not, and you cannot know it. And in 
this state of uncertainty, where everybody is wanting -to know the 
truth and where nobody seem.s to know it, had you not rather be able 
to say in the future: "If I erred at all, it was upon the side of mercy 
and humanity." You v.'ould take pride in saying that all the days of 
your life. Your friends would take pride in saying it of you. They 
might be disappointed for the time. I know full well the prejudice that 
exists in this case. But that feeling is rapidly giving away and bye 
and bye those who have been most cruel and vindictive will be remem- 
bered by their neighbors as being men who will not do to trust to do 
the right thing, when pressure is brought to bear upon them. When hu- 
man rife and human liberty are at stake, men should be careful not to 
be influenced by any consideration other than the guilt or innocence of 
the accused, and they should know that he is guilty before they lay 
bands upon his liberty or his freedom. 



94 

Gov. Crittenden, in speaking of what care and caution jurors- 
should use "When human liberty and human life was at stake, and how 
sure they should be that the defendant was guilty before they bring 
in a verdict of guilty, addressed a jury thus: But upon the other hand, 
if you should feel that there ought to have been a verdict of guilty, 
your conscience will be easily satisfied. You will say: If I erred, it 
was upon the side of mercy, thank God; I incurred no hazard of coe- 
demning a man who might have been innocent. How different the 
memory from that which may come at any calm moment, by day or 
night, knocking at the door of your heart, and reminding you that in 
a case where you were doubtful, by your verdict, you sent an innocent 
man to disgrace and to death. Oh! gentlemen, pronounce no such 
verdict. I beseech you not to do it, except on the most clear and cer- 
tain and solid grounds. If you err, for your own sake, as well as for 
that of the defendant, keep on the side of humanity and save him from 
such a dishonorable fate; preserve yourselves from so bitter a memory. 
It will not do, then, to plead to your consciences any subtle techni- 
calities and nice logic; such cunning of the mind will never satisfy the 
heart of an honest man. The case must be one that speaks for itself; 
that requires no reasoning; that, without argument, appeals to the 
understanding and strikes conviction to the very heart. Unless it 
dees that, you abuse yourselves, abuse your consciences, and irrevo- 
cably wrong your fellow-man by pronouncing him guilty. It is life. 
It is blood with which you have to deal, and beware that you peril 
not your peace. 

These are the words of one of Kentucky's greatest Governors; 
one of Kentucky's greatest Democrats; one of Kentucky's greatest 
men. He says that the case must be one that speaks for itself. One 
that requires no reasonings and no argument, but strikes convictioa 
to the very heart. He says that unless it does this that you abuse 
yourselves and your conscience and irrevocably wrong your fellow- 
man, by pron'ouncing a verdict of guilty. Oh, my God! Is this case 
such an one that strikes conviction into your heart without argument? 
He says that it is life, it is blood with which you have to deal, and 
beware that you imperil not your own peace. 

This occasion will soon fly by; these prosecutions will soon come 
to an end. Whatever the verdict in this case, the affairs of this great 
world will still go on, and if the Democrati<; party in this State; if 
the, prosecution in this case; if the brothers ef Senator Goebel really 
want to try Gov. Taylor for alleged complicity in the murder of th^r 
brother, they will soon have that opportunity if you will do justice 
in this case. As soon as I am acquitted, as I deserve to be, Taylor wUI 
be surrendered for trial by the Indiana authorities. If you want to 
try him in these courts, instead of me, you have that opportunity. I 
think I know whereof I ipeak. 



95 

But, leaving out of consideration the question of policy and expe- 
diecy, justice demands that I be given my liberty. I implore you, 
gentlemen, to do the right thing in this case. Your days on earth 
may not be many. I beg of you not to ruin both yours and mine. The 
Almighty seems to have been on the wake of those who have been 
doing wrong in these cases.* At any rate, gentlemen, whatever may 
have been the cause of it ,tho6e who have been most vindictive have 
met with misfortune. 

They ask you to rob me of the brightest jewel of my life — my good 
name, my honor, ah, even of my life itself. Your faces, gentlemen, tell 
me that you will never do it. It was not enough to take my office from 
me, break me up and reduce me to poverty and want. But they throw 
me in chains and brand me as a red-handed murderer for resisting, 
in a legitimate way, the taking of my office. They brand me as a felon 
for doing that which any honest man on earth would have done. They 
have not done right by me, gentlemen. It is wrong; it is cruel; it is 
barbarous; it is an awful crime against myself and a brutal and 
dangerous stab at our courts of justice and our country's honor. 
A RETROSPECTIVE VIEW. 

Let us now take up the claim on the part of the prosecution that 
the bringing of the mountain crowd to Frankfort constituted a part 
of the conspiracy to murder William Goebel. 

In order for you, getntlemen, to understand fully my motives in 
bringing that crowd to Frankfort, you must put yourselves in my place. 
The best rule I have ever discovered, gentlemen, to know whether or 
not I have been wronged or insulted or mistreated by anybody, if I am 
in doubt about it, is to put myself in his place and surround myself 
by that which surrounds him, and see what I would have done under 
like circumstances. And that is the intention of the law, gentlemen, 
in the trial of those accused. It is the duty of the jury to put them- 
selves, as nearly as possible, in the place of the accused, when he is 
supposed to have committed the crime with which he is charged. I 
ask you to do that in this case. 

Over three years have elapsed, gentlemen, since the crime was 
committed with which I am charged. It would be unfair to me for you 
gentlemen, who are here in the quietude of this little city, where the 
strifes and turmoils of three years ago, are not now felt, and scarcely 
realized, to try me from the jury box here. I ask you to go with me 
back to those happy days and put yourself in my place. 

Suppose, Mr. Wyatt, you had been elected to the office of Secretary 
of State, as I was elected. SuppQse that you had spent month« in try- 
ing to get the nomination; suppose that after you had spent much 
time and money. You finally sacceeded in getting the nominaition a.t 
th« hands of your party; suppose that after you had been nominat-ed 
that yom antared upon a hard eanva*s for the alection; suppose tlwit 



96 

after many months of trying labor you were finally elected to the high 
office of Secretary of State; suppose that the Republican party of the 
State had the election machinery of the State in its hands; suppose 
they had passed a law and had it on the statute books of the State, 
whereby the Legislature had the power to appoint a State Board of 
three Election Commissioners ,and suppose that the State Board of 
Election Commissioners had the power to appoint a County Board of 
Election Commissioners in every county in the State, and suppose that 
County Board had the power to appoint the election officers in every 
voting precinct in this Sate; suppose that the three State Election 
Commissioners all affiliated with the Republican party and that the 
law which gave them their being, gave them the power to appoint all 
three of the Election Commissioners in each county from the same 
political party. 

Suppose that the members of the County Board and the three 
members of the State Board were clothed with ministerial as well as 
the judicial powers. In other words, that they not only Lad the right 
to tabulate the returns of the election and to issue the certificate of 
election to whomsoever they desired to have the office, but that they 
sat as a court to try all contested cases. In other words, if they 
had issued the ecrtificate of election to your Republican opponent, 
they would then, under the law which had been framed, sit as a court 
to decide whether they had done the rlhgt thing or the wrong thing, 
when they issued your Republican opponent the certificate of election. 
Suppose that the precinct election officers and various county boards 
did on divers occasions throw out the legal votes which you had re- 
ceived; suppose that several precincts over the State had been con- 
tested by your Republican opponent on first one flimsy pretext after 
another, and that the election officers had refused to count that vote; 
suppose that several whole counties had been contested where yon 
had received a large majority over your opponent, and that the county 
boards had refused to count the votes of these counties, alleging that 
the votes had been cast on ballots, too thick, or too thin. 

Suppose that when the matter came up for decision before the 
State Board of Election Commissioners, all three of whom were parti- 
san Republicans, but two of whom were lawyers and honest men, de- 
cided that they were on^y acting then in their ministerial capactiy, and 
that it was their dnty, under the law, their politics notwithsanding, 
to give the certificate of election to yourself and the rest of your 
Democratic colleagues on the Democratic ticket. Suppose that a 
majority of the Board did do that and that you were regularly and 
legally installed into office. Suppose that your Republican opponent 
was not satisfied with that, but declared his intention of still prose- 
cuting the contest. Suppose that the two Republicans who had decided 
for you, in order to get out of the unpleasant predicament in which 



97 

they were placed, resigned their positions and left the one member 
who remained, and who had decided against you, to appoint two other 
members to act with him in the decision of the contest. Suppose that 
he appointed two Republicans, whom he knew would decide with him, 
and against you; suppose he declared his intention of doing that very 
thing; and that one of the men whom he appointed declared, through 
the public press, his position on the matter before it came before 
him as judge, and that he said in substance that he would decide for 
the Republicans when it came to him. Suppose that these two men 
appointed a third member equally partisan; suppose that the trial 
came up before these three gentlemen; that you file an affidavit stating 
that they would not give you a fair trial, and that you did not want 
them to try your case. Suppose that they said in response to that, 
that there was no law whereby you could swear them off the bench, 
and that they proposed to try your case; that the law under which they 
were serving gave them the rig'ht to decide your case, notwithstanding 
the fact that they had already virtually said that they would decide 
your case against you. 

Suppose the very law that gave them the right to so act upon your 
case, over your objection and your protest, said in plain words that 
the decision of the men who refused to be sworn off the bench and 
who had already expressed themselves in your case, should be final 
and conclusive. In other words, when they decided against you, which 
they were declaring that they would do, that you could not take your 
case to any other court for relief; that their deoisien settled it; that 
it was a peculiar court; that It differed from he Circuit Court in that, 
if it decided against you, you could not carry your case to a higher 
court for relief. That in that particular it had privileges denied the 
Circuit Court. That it was a higher court than the Court of Appeals, 
in that the Court of Appeals could not review its findings; that 
its decisions were too sacred to be touched by human hands. Suppose 
they should say: It does not matter what we decide, that settles it. 
We have the power to throw out the votes of one county in the State, 
if we want to. We can throw out two, if we like, and that stiH is 
our businees. 

A PERSONAL ILLUSTRATION. 

Suppose, Mr. Wyatt, that you, as a Democrat, received 75,000 
majority over your Republican opponent and that the State Board of 
Election Commissioners were declaring it to be their intention to 
throw out the votes of the county of Scott, and the county of Grant, 
and the county of Franklin and the county of Owen and the county of 
Henry, which gave you a majority. They would not touch the vote of 
Knox County, although the some grounds existed for not counting the 
vote of that county, as existed and for not counting the votes of Scott 
and Grant and other counties. Suppose that it had been in their power 



98 

to have thrown out the vote of every county in this State that gave a 
Democrat majority. Then it would have been in the power of those 
three Republicans to have absolutely controlled the distribution of 
the offices of this State, the vote of the people to the contrary not- 
withstanding. 

Suppose that these three Republican Commissioners were under 
no bond to discharge their duty. Suppose that you were unable, by 
reason of the law under which they were serving, to bring a civil suit 
for damages. Suppose that there was no law to punish them criminally 
for the basest and most fragrant violation of their sworn duty. 

Suppose that, in addition to that, gentlemen, that the Capitol of 
this State was at Barboursville, Knox county, my home. Suppose that 
these three Republican Commissioners were sitting there in the heart 
of that Republican stronghold. You would expect to find all the town 
authorities and officials Republicans, all of the police of the town 
Republicans. Suppose that the contest of your case was going on 
under these conditions. 

What would you have done, Mr. Mitchell? You would have been 
elected to one of the highest offices of the State by the great Demo- 
cratic party. You have been commissioned by a majority of a Repub- 
lican returning board to go to Barbourville to take charge of the office 
to which you had been elected. Two Republican Commissioners had 
given you your seat and you were there discharging, as best you could, 
the duties of that office. The Republicans, after it had been given to 
you, were declaring it to be their purpose to take the office from you, 
and were proceeding to do it under the conditions which I have de- 
scribed. You were chosen by the Democrats of the State to look after 
their interests. The Republicans were threatening to overturn the 
voice of the people. They were declaring it to be their purpose to 
make slaves of the people of the Democratic party; slaves so far as 
the right to vote, and have their vote counted as cast, were concerned. 
You had been elected; you were their representative; they were look- 
ing to you and the other members of the ticket to protect and uphold 
their rights of citizenship. 

Now, what would you have done, gentlemen, under a state of case 
of that sort? You would have had to have done something. The law 
that the Republicans enacted for the purpose of robbing you, was on 
the statute books. Under that law, they had their officers serving. 
Under it, they were empowered to take your office from you; and from 
whose decision, the law itself said, that there w-as no appeal to any 
court in the land for relief. 

I ask you what you would have done, Mr. Engle? Would you have 
crept quietly out of the town of Barbourville on the first train, gone 
to your home and said to your mother with trembling lips: "Those 
Republicans have contested the election of my office; they are threat- 



99 

ening to take it from me; there is a great deal of excitement up there^ 
I am afraid I am going to be hurt; I wish you would tuck me quietly 
to rest in my little baby bed, where I can sleep and rest and where 
no harm can befall me, and let me there remain until this excitement 
is over. I am my mother's dear little boy, and I must not be in any 
place where danger might befall me." 

Would you have done that, Mr. Engle? You would have been 
compelled to have done something. You either had to stand your 
ground and contend and fight, if necessary, for the right and liberty 
of your people or you would had to have to thrown up the white flog 
and surrendered. What would you have done, gentlemen? You know 
what you would have done, and so would I. There is not a man of you 
but what would have stood your ground. You, Mr. Wyatt, with your 
white locks and ' matured and ripened judgment, would have nailed 
your integrity high in the heavens and would have stood your ground 
until the last drop of your blood was drunk up by the soil of your 
State. You know that you wouldi. You know that you would not 
have run to your home and, from that quiet and restful and undis- 
turbed retreat, watched the proceedings from a distance. 

Would you not have come to your home people, to the people of 
Scott, Woodford, Henry, Owen and Bourbon counties and asked them 
to have gone with you up to Barbourville and there, by petition and 
protest and remonstrance, begged those in power not to disfranchise 
yourselves and your countrymen, when such conduct on the part was 
endorsed and sanctioned by the leaders of your party? You might not 
have taken your guns along, but more than likely you would, if you . 
had been going to the heart of Republicanism in this State. More 
than likely you would, if you knew those among whom you were to 
go were armed to the teeth. 

If you had not tried to have aroused the people to protest; if you 
had not tried to have influenced, by petition, those who held the fate 
of your office and the liberty of the people of your State in their hands, 
I ask you to tell me what you would have done? Would you have sat 
tamely around on the streets of Barboursville and have said that it 
looks like they are going to rob us; folded up your arms and sighed 
sighed over what you were about to lose? Or would you have, by 
every legitimate means in your power, tried to preserve, intact, the 
liberties of the people and keep off the fair name of your State the 
stigma of the robbery of the dearest right of Kentucky's freemen? 

Gentlemen, that Is what I tried to do in all good faith. What 
was left to the people to do but to petition and remonstrate? What 
could they do but plead with those in power not to take from them 
their dearest rights and most valued privileges? I did go to the 
mountains, gentlemen, and I brought the men down there. I felt that 
I was doing my duty to my State. I did not know but what similar 



100 

expeditions miglit come from other parts of the State. I did not 
know but what the voice of the people might be heeded, if that voice 
could be raised sufficiently loud in protest. 

ACTED IN GOOD FAITH. 

It was as natural for me to have gone to the mountalne to get 
men as it would have been for you men to have come to the counties 
of Scott, and Woodford, and Bourbon, the counties of your home. I 
did not dream of a conspiracy to murder Mr. Goebel. If I had wanted 
to have killed him, what would I have wanted to have brought 1,000 
men to Frankfort with which to have done it? If the presence of 
mountain people in Frankfort was necessary to the death of Mr. Goe- 
bel, why did I not have him killed with the first crowd I brought to 
Frankfort? The testimony is in that record, gentlemen, that I brought 
some 300 or 400 men to Frankfort when the Election Commissioners 
were passing upon the question as to whom belonged the certificate 
of election. For what purpose did they come to Frankfort, gentle- 
men? If the last crowd was brought to Frankfort for the purpose of 
killing Mr Goebel, as these men claim, why was it necessary to have 
brought the third crowd to Frankfort before doing the work? There 
were 300 or 400 men in Frankfort from the mountains soon after these 
contests were first instituted. That was more mountain men in 
Frankfort than there were in Frankfort at the time Senator Goebel 
was killed. If the presence of mountain men was necessary for the 
killing of Senator Goebel, why was he not killed at that time? What 
.sense was there in bringing these mountain men to Frankfort for the 
purpose of killing Mr. Goebel? And the second crowd came from the 
12th to 17th of January. There were some 150 of them — as many as 
were in Frankfort at the time Senator Goebel was killed. 

Why bring these men to Frankfort and let them go away, if it 
was the purpose to have some one of them to kill Senator Goebel, or 
to protect the men in the building after it was done? Answer me that. 
If I had been base enough to have had Senator Goebel killed at all, 
I was base enough at the time the first crowd of men came to Frank- 
fort and I could have had him killed at that time, I suppose, as easily 
as I could have had him killed later. If a mountain crowd was brought 
there for that purpose, as is claimed, tell me why it was ever neces- 
sary to bring more than one. Why was the first crowd of 400 men per- 
mitted to come to Frankfort and go away without doing the work? 
Tell me that, gentlemen. Why was the second crowd ever permitted 
to come to Frankfort and return to their hames without doing the 
work? Tell me that. 

If I could have gotten some member of the last crowd to have 
done it, I see no reason why I could not have gotten some member 
of the first or second crowd to have done it, just as easy. Do you 



101 

see any reason why I could not have done it, gentlemen; could not 
have done it just as easy? 

The first crowd was brought there for the purpose of showing 
the interest the people had felt in the subject matter concerning which 
these commissioners had to deal. Judge Pryor and Capt. Ellis were 
honorable men. They both had been elevated by the people to posi- 
tions of trust and honor; the people had confidence in them, and 
whether they decided that we had been legally elected because it was 
a fact, and out of deference to the will of the people expressed at the 
polls, or whether they did it as a colc\, unsympathizing proposition of 
law, or whether they did it because it was right, and because the 
people were demanding fair play, we may never know; at any rate, the 
people did come to Frankfort at that time and the fact remains that 
the decision of that board was. in harmony with the wishes and views 
of the people who came to Frankfort from the mountains when that 
canvassing board was in session. 

We believed that their coming to Frankfort had had a good effect, 
and if one crowd had a good effect, why not another crowd have also 
a good effect when they came on the same or similar mission? The 
first crowd of people came to Frankfort solely for the moral effect; so 
did the third. . Do you suppose, for one moment, gentlemen, that I 
would have brought 1,000 men to Frankfort if it had been my purpose 
to have Senator Goebel killed? They claim that these men were all 
conspirators. Do you suppose that I would have taken into my con^ 
fidence 1,000 conspirators? Would I have held a meeting in the 
Agricultural office for the purpose of having murder committed with 
men who had never before seen each other? Would I have given out 
money in such large sums so publicly and so promiscuously? Would 
I have taken receip'ts for the money andi from so many people? Would 
I have left behind me written evidences that I had entered into a con- 
spiracy to kill and murder? 

But these men say that my bringing to Frankfort of this large 
crowd of people constituted a conspiracy to murder Senator Goebel 
and the Legislature. A conspiracy, and a thousand people in a con- 
spiracy! Do you think I woul go to the mountains of Kentucky and 
take a thousand people into my bosom and make them conspirators 
with me? You never heard of a conspiracy of that character, where 
the taking of human life was inteded. The bringing of that mountain 
crowd may have been an indiscreet thing. I Vv^ant to be perfectly fair 
with you; but, so far as the conspiracy is concerned, you know you 
would not take a thousand people into your confidence and make them 
conspirators with you. Do you suppose that if that meeting in the 
Agricultural office had been a meeting of conspirators, that Culton would 
have had to been introduced to Van Zant; they had never seen each other 
before; or Van Zant would have had to been introduced to Hamp How- 



102 

ard ; they had never seen each other before, and that they would enter 
into a conspiracy with themselves and me for the purpose of 
taking a man's life. That is unreasonable, and the prosecution has to 
admit it. They complain loudly that it is a conspiracy, but when you 
get down to the bed^rock of truth, they admit it was not a conspiracy. 

There were eight members of that meeting, and out of that eight 
members' but three have been indicted. If the Agricultural meeting 
was a meeting of conspirators, why indict but three of the eight. If 
it had been a conspiracy, Mr. Franklin, you would have indicted the 
last one of the people. You know it, and I know it, and the whole 
country knows it, and you have confessed, by your failure to indict 
them, that i1 was not a conspiracy. Do you believe I would have 
given out $1,000 on that occasion and have taken written receipts for 
it, leaving beEind me written evidence of the fact that I had entered 
into a conspiracy then and there to bring about the death of my fellow- 
man? Do you think I would have done that? Do you think I would 
have left that meeting and gone out in the city of Frankfort and sent a 
dozen tlegrams to people out in the country — Judge Bingham, 
Supt. Siler, "Hop" Donaldson, Rice and others, telling them to meet me 
at London? What for? For the purpose of entering into a conspiracy? 
If the meeting in the Agricultural office constitutes a conspiracy, cer- 
tainly the meeting at London constitutes a conspiracy, because those 
people met on exactly the same mission and for the purpose of carry- 
ing out exactly the same purpose. At that time and place there met 
Judge Bingham, Superintendent Siler, J. Hop Donaldson, Capt. Rice, 
Early and others, and none of these people have been indicted by the 
prosecution. Many of them were older men than I, and knew more about 
men and affairs than I do. Then, if that meeting was a conspiracy, 
these men should have been indicted. Do you believe that if that 
meeting had been a conspiracy, I would have given out a lot more money 
and taken written receipts for it, leaving behind me further evidence 
of the fact that I had entered into a conspiracy to murder my fellow- 
man? Do you believe I would have gone to Barboursville, Ky., and from 
carrying arms openly, calling attention to the people all over the 
world, that they had entered into a conspiracy to bring about 
the death of their fellow-man, and that they wanted to give it all th« 
publicity possible? It is unreasonable. 

If the bringing of the mountain crowd to Frankfort was a part 
of a conspiracy, why have you not indicted Capt. Steve Sharp, who 
presided at the meeting they held on the steps of the Capital of the 
State? Why haven't you indicted Mr. Berry, Mr. Nazor, Judge Catron 
and others who were appointed a committee on resolutions at that 
meeting, and presented them to the body for their consideration? 
Why not indict some of the men of the Blue Grass who participated 
in that meeting? 



103 

If the idea had been to take human life, do you suppose that I 
would have had the men to have carried their arms openly and come 
on a special train and worn badges, and thereby warn the other side 
that we were there and to get ready for us? Would we have notified 
the other side of our coming, if we had intended to have killed them? 
If it had been the purpose of the mountain men to have cleaned up the 
Legislature, as Culton puts it, would it not have been far wiser to have 
brought only small ar.m&? One pistol would be worth a dozen rifles in 
a, close fight like that. 

WHAT GOOD COULD RESULT? 

And what good would the cleaning up of the Legislature do me? 
Would you have taken a crowd of your friends to have gone up to 
Barbourville for the purpose of cleaning up the Legislature in the case 
I have supposed, when the members of the Legislature had nothing 
to do with your ofllce, and when the mere fact that you had killed a 
member of the Legislature, or a Republican Governor, would make 
the other Republicans who had charge of your contest decide against 
you? It would have but one possible effect on your contest I have 
supposed, and that, in the excitement of the hour, when the blood was 
hot, to turn you out of your office, whether your opponent had been 
•elected or not. 

Dou you suppose that I would have brought a crowd of people 
down to Frankfort for the purpose of killing Mr. Goebel, or the mem- 
bers of the Legislature, when it could have had but one possible effect 
on the office I was trying to hold, and that to deprive me of it, in the 
excitement of the hour and to realiate against the outrage done in 
killing members of the Legislature, or the contestant for Governor? 
What if that crowd had gone up into the halls of the Legislature and 
have killedi a dozen members of the Kentucky Legislature, as these 
gentlemen allege was the purpose for which they were brought to 
Frankfort? What effect would that have had on the office to which 
I had bee nelected? Let us see. 

Would not a storm of indignation have swept over this State? 
Would not the people have stood aghast at such a procedure? Would 
not the heart of every honest man in all this land, have beat with 
indignation at such brutal and cowaraly atrocities? If the Republicans 
had brought about such a catastrophe, would not the whole State have 
said: "Yes, take their offices away from them; they are unworthy of 
them?" Would not the people have demanded that if such a gang of 
vultures, had been elevated to high official position, that they should be 
taken from power before they have another opportunity to further dis- 
gracing our State? Would not I have known that that would have 
been the result of such a thing as that? Would I not have known 



104 

that such a course would have taken from me my office? Would I 
have done that, w^hen I was trying to hold it? 

If I had been so constituted that I would have resorted to murder 
in order to have held office, would I not have had Mr. Poyntz killed 
when Pryor and Ellis resigned from office? Had he been dead, the 
Governor, under the law, was the man who had the power to appoint 
all three of the Board of Election Commissioners. Had Poyntz been 
killed. Gov. Taylor would have appointed three members on the State 
Board of Election Commissioners, and they would have decided that 
I was elected, and that I was entitled to my office. That is the law 
in this State. No well-informed man doubts it. 

If I had wanted to kill anybody, in order to have held my office, 
I would have killed somebody that would have done me some good. 
Messrs. Pryor and Ellis resigned their office on the 22d day of Decem- 
ber, 1899, and Mr. Poyntz did not appoint anybody to fill their places 
until some time afterward. If Mr. Poyntz had been killed within 
that interval, the law is as plain as the noon-day sun, that Taylor had 
the power to have appointed' three men to have composed the State 
Board of Election Commissioners. He would have appointed' three 
Republicans. These three Republicans would have decided for us and 
every State officer, from Lieutenant-Governor down, would have been 
holding the offices at Frankfort to-day, and no power short of revolu- 
tion could have prevented us from doing it. 

If I had been willing to have committed murder to have held 
office, would net common sense say to do it that way? But here you 
have me charged with leading a conspiracy to commit murder that 
could have but one effect on the office to which I was elected, and that 
to take it from me. In one breath you say that I am a fool and in the 
next breath you say that I am the brains of the alleged conspiracy, as 
you have asserted. If I have sense enough to have been the brains 
of one conspiracy, I have sense enough to have been the brains of 
another. And, if I had been in the killing of anybody, I would have 
been in that killing, that would have helped Powers to have held his 
office, and not in the one that would have been sure to have taken 
it from him. Is this not common sense, gentlemen? Would I not have 
procured my man and have sent him to where Mr. Poyntz was and 
there have killed him? They say that I am an arch-conspirator and 
murderer, and a fiend and an assassin. Why did I not do that, gentle- 
men? And then have gotten a pardon for the man who did it and 
one for myself before Gove. Taylor was ousted from office, and when 
he had the legal right to pardon? 

Why did I not commit murder that would profit me something? 
Why would I commit murder that would take from me that for which 
I was contending — my office? Ah, gentlemen, there is no conspiracy 
in bringing those mountain men down to Frankfort. I had but one ol>- 



105 

ject, and only one, and that was to serve my State honorably; to repre- 
sent faithfully those who entrusted me with power and oflBce, with the 
very best of my ability; to preserve to the legal voters of this State the 
sacred right to vote for the candidates of their choice and have these 
votes counted as cast; to hold the office to which I had been fairly 
elected. My judgment may have been at fault, but my intentions were 
honest. If a mistake it was, it was one of the head, and not one of 
the heart. 

When at Barbourville, in the meeting at the Anderson Hotel, when 
Mr. Black suggested that it would be impossible to keep those men 
quiet, and sober, and orderly, I agreed to put a man over each squad 
for that purpose. When they got to the depot at Barbourville, Mr. 
Trosper, Mr. Higgins and other witnesses told you that I went up and 
down the depot and said to the men that they must not get drunk on 
this trip, and that they must keep sober and orderly and conduct them- 
selves in such a way as to cast no reflection on their e-nd of the State. 
Mr. Lockhart told you that I said to him that it would not be very 
safe at Frankfort with a pistol, and it would not be very safe without 
one; that I advised him not to get drunk, when he got to Frankfort, 
and to keep off the streets; to keep sober, and to keep out of trouble. 
Other witnesses told you that I went through the train twice from 
Barbourville to Frankfort and cautioned the men that they must keep 
out of trouble. Does this look like the conduct of a conspirator, gen- 
tlemen? Those men were instructed to wear their badges. If they 
were going on a mission of murder, would they be advertising it to 
the whole world? 

And when they got to Frankfort, what did they do? They stacked 
their arms. They put them away. If murder had been their mission, 
why put away their instruments of war? If they came down there 
to have killed Senator Goebel, or members of the Senate, or 
House of Representatives, why did they not hold to their arms, and 
use them for the purpose for which they were brought? The Legisla- 
ture wasin session that day. Why did they not take their guns and 
go up stairs and say to the members of the Legislature: "We have 
come to settle this contest." Why give thirty minutes in which to 
settle it? According to these gentlemen, these mountaineers would 
rather kill some one than not. But Culton says that the Legislature 
was given thirty minutes in which to settle the contest. Cecil says 
fifteen minutes. Why did they not go up there and say: "Gentlemen, 
we will give you thirty minutes to settle this contest;" and if they did 
not settle it in thirty minutes, why did not they kill off enough Demo- 
crats to make the Republican majority? That is whot Golden says 
was the program. The men were there; they had their guns there; 
there was nothing to hinder them from carrying out the program, as 
suggested by Golden, and Culton, and Cecil. 



106 

The old, old adage, "Actions speak louder than words," is appli- 
cable to this particular case. Culton said that they were coming 
down there, and that they intended to give the Legislature thirty 
minutes to settle the contest, and that if they did not do that, it was 
his understanding that they intended to kill them. George S. Page, 
who was a member of the same meeting, where I was supposed to 
have made a remark of that kind to members of the meeting, testified 
that he did not hear me say anything of the kind. T. C. Davison was 
also a member of that meeting, and he said that 1 did not say any- 
thing of the kind. George S. Page, H. H. Howard, H. S. Van Zant and 
T. C. Davison said that they were members of the Agricultural oflBce 
meeting, and that I did not use the words attributed to me by either 
Culton or Cecil, but that I told them and other members of the meet- 
ing, to get good men to come to Frankfort for the purpose of petition- 
ing the Legislature. 

WHY DID THEY NOT KILL? 

But the best proof of the pudding, is in the eating of it; and thte 
best proof of what the men came down to do is what they did. It is 
confessed by everybody that there were enough to have carried out 
our plan or anything that they might have determined upon. And 
since there was nothing to have prevented them from giving the 
Legislature thirty minutes to settle it, and if they did not do it, to 
have killed the last one of them; and, since they did not kill any of 
them; since they never triedi to kill any of them, the conclusion is 
inevitable that they either did not come down to Frankfort for the 
purpose of killing the Legislature or giving them thirty minutes to 
settle the contest, or they failed to. carry out their plans when they 
did come. There is no escape from that conclusion. 

We have heard a great deal about the killing of members of the 
Legislature in the Legislative hall, but we have heard noth'r.^: about 
a fight in the Senate, or killing members of the Senate. Hv.w >vould 
a fight in the Legislative hall effect Senator Goebel or other members 
of the Senate? The two bodies are separate and distinct, and occupy 
different apartments, and if it had been the idea to have killed Senator 
Goebel in a brawl, the idea would have been, not to have a fight 
in the House, but a fight in the Senate. If you wanted to kill the 
proprietor of the Lancaster Hotel, here in Georgetown, in a fight, 
would you go into the Wellington Hotel and there raise a fight? You 
would go to the hotel whose owner ycu wanted to kill. If it had been 
the idea to have killed Senator Goebel in a fight, the fight would have 
been raised in the Senate; not in the House. That is common sense, 
gentlemen. These gentlemen realized the force of that, and in their 
effort to try to avoid the effect of such reasoning, they take the more 
absurd and ridiculous position that the idea of the Republicans was 



107 

to kill off enough Democrats to- make a Republican majority. In other 
words, instead of killing one man, to kill a dozen or two. 

If a fight had occurred in the Legislative hall, what would have 
been the result, aside from the one I have already referred to? Only 
one; and that is, that a great many of the Republican members would 
have been killed, as well as a great many DemocraJ;ic members. And, 
surely, the Republicans would' not enter into arrangements whereby 
their own members were to be killed, or any part of them? And all 
this talk about a fight in either House, has either been lies, deliberately 
sworn to, or those who talked it, are maniacs. 

It is claimed that they wanted to kill the Senators and Representa- 
tives, so that when they came to vote on the question as to whether 
Groebel or Taylor should hold the seat as Governor, that there would 
be a majority for Taylor, and the way to get that majority was to kill 
enough of the Democrats to give the Republicans a majority. I have 
recently looked up just how the members stood politically. Counting 
the independent Democrats, who voted with the Republicans upon 
most measures, the Senate was Democratic by two votes, counting 
the anti-Goebel Democrats with the Republicans. And the House was 
Democratic by sixteen votes; so that on joint ballot, the Democrats 
had a majority of 18 votes; then, nine of them would have to have 
been killedi betore the Republicans would have had a. majority, and it 
is safe to say that five Republicans would have been killed in the 
operation; for it would hardly be expected that none of them would 
be killed. 

Then, gentlemen, is it not true that if there had been any arrange- 
ment by which a row or fight was to have taken place in either the 
House or the Senate for the purpose of killing enough Democratic 
members to give the Republicans a majority on joint ballot, for the 
purpose of out voting the Democrats and seating Gov. Taylor, we can- 
not escape the conclusion that the Republicans must have been warned 
of such a procedure on the part of their Republican friends, otherwise 
they would have as likely to have been killed in such a brawl as the 
Democratic members. 

Excitement was extremely high; trouble was expected from the 
country at large; and those at the storm-center of the wild excitement 
that prevailed in the State were in daily dread that an outburst might 
come, at any moment, and their lives be lost. It is wholly unreason- 
able, gentlemen, that if there had been a movement on foot on the 
part of any Republican or Republicans in Frankfort to have slaugh- 
tered a sufficient number of either the Democratic members of the 
House or Senate to have given the Republicans a majority on joint 
ballot — I say that it would be wholly unreasonable to contend that 
the Republican members were not notified that such a catastrophe was 
coming, and for them to be prepared to take care of their own lives. 



108 

The prosecution says: "Yes, they were notified and that they were to 
fall flat on the floor upon the flring of the flrst shot." Then, gentlemen, 
if they were warned that such a movement was on foot, they became 
a party to this alleged conspiracy. 

Then, you haye forty-two members of the House and eighteen 
members of the Senate who were parties to. this conspiracy, 
if such there was, to bring about the death of Senator Goebel And 
if they were in the conspiracy, Mr. Franklin, why have you not indicted 
and convicted them? This county would like to know that. I fall at 
your feet and beg for that little crown of information. 

Again, no man will believe that all the Republican Senators and 
Representatives would swear falsely if they were placed on the witness 
stand in this case. And if there were any plans or arrangements by 
which the Democratic members of either House were to be killed, 
the Republican members would certainly know about it; and if you 
believe in good faith, Mr. Franklin; if you have any faith, Mr. Camp- 
bell, in your claim that there was such a conspiracy to murder your 
law-makers of law-breakers, as the case may be, then why have you 
not called these Republican members who must have known about 
such a plot, to substantiate Golden and Culton and Youtsey, 
et id omne genus, in their statements to that effect, when they cannot 
be believed unless they are corroborated and that no one of them can- 
not corroborate the other. Then, gentlemen, it is not only true that 
Culton and Golden and Cecil & Co., are swearing to what they know to 
be untrue, but it is plain, as the further fact, that the prosecution 
knows that there was no such conspiracy to kill off enough Democrats 
to make a Republican majority ; such is the talk of a lunatic, an empty 
worded idiot. 

NO GRIME WAS COMMITTED. 

But suppose, for the sake of argument, and that only, let us sup- 
pose that the crowd did come down for the purpose of killing the 
members of the Legislature. For the sake of argument, and for that 
only, let us admit for the time being, that they did come down for 
that purpose; suppose they came down for the purpose of blottine 
FranMort off the map; suppose they meant to overrun civil Institu- 
tions in this State and institute in their, stead a reign of terror and 
bloodshed. They never came far any soich purpose, but suppose they 
did, it is beyond dispute, beyond question, that they did not carry 
our the purpose for which they came, if they come on any such pur- 
pose. They came to Frankfort; they were orderly; they petitioned 
the Legislature; they went home; no hair on the head of a single man 
was harmed. If they came to do violence or harm they did not do it. 
That being true, there is no law to punish them for the intentions 
which were never carried out. 



109 

Let me illustrate. Suppose, Mr. Booth, that some one should go 
to the home of one of your neighbors for the purpose of stealing one 
of his horses; suppose that after he got there he concluded that he 
wouldi not take the horses, and returned home, leaving the horses of 
your neighbor undisturbed and unharmed, would any one contend that 
he could be punished criminally for the intention he entertained, when 
that intention was not carried out? Nobody woul contend that. There 
is not a lawyer on the other side of this case who will slander his 
professional reputation by asserting that the man could be legally 
punished. And if the intention of the mountain men was to murder, 
as Culton claimed^ their intention was, it was not carried out. If some 
man in this house had it in his heart to murder the stenographer here 
when this Court adjourns; Court does adjourn, and he is not 
harmed, there is no law to punish the man, whatever his intention 
may have been, and however clearly they may have been established. 
So you cannot punish a man for his intentions. And if the mountain 
people did come to Frankfort for the purpose of giving the Legislature 
thirty minutes to settle the contest, it is evident that they did not 
carry out their intentions and, therefore, they could not be punished 
for coming with these intentions. And it naturally follows that I could 
not be legally punished for bringing the mountain people to Frank- 
lort, it they did come on a mission of murder. 

But, gentlemen, they came with no such intentions. From the 
time they entered Frankfort on the morning of January 25th, until 
they left it, on the evening of the same day, their conduct be- 
spoke a peaceful mission. It is different matter, as you gentlemen 
know, to control the conduct of everybody. Because one man should 
disturb church services, are we to conclude that it is the desire 
of all present, tnat the services be disturbed? Because some 
one of the mountain men should get drunk and say rash things, as 
Mr. Vreelaind testifies that one did, are we to conclude, that all the 
rest of the men endorse such statements? It would be as fair to say 
that all th members of a church were glad, in tlielr hearts, that the 
services were broken up, as to say that all the momitain crowd en- 
dorsed senti-ment of violence. The way to judge the purpose of a 
congregation at church; the purpose of a mass meeting; the purpose 
of a public meeting. Is to decide their purpose from what they do as 
a body, and not from some wild saying of some irresponsible member. 
Is that not true, gentlemen? How else can it be done? 

Suppose that the people in this court house at this moment 
should call up — the citizens of Georgetown — to express their views as 
to whether or not a certain proposition should be enacted into a law 
by the town authorities. Suppose some one Introduces a resolution 
declaring it to be the sense of the citizens of Georgetown here present 
that the propositioa should be enacted into a law, and the chairman 



110 

of the meeting should say that the resolution is now open for dis- 
cussion and some wild fanatic should arise and say: "Mr. Chairman, 
I am a citizen of Scott County and a resident of the town of George- 
town. I have helped to support your laws by my means for twenty 
years. Lawlessness still exists; I am in favor of wiping out of exist- 
ence, every law that has been enacted by the authorities of this town. 
I am tired of law. I am in favor of not only that, but I want every 
particle of law that governs the conduct of the people of this State, 
whether common, municipal or statutory, immediately being ren- 
dered void." He sits down. He has had his say. The people pay 
no attention to his wild vaporings, but go ahead and say, by an 
unanimous vote, that they are in favor of the proposed enactment 
becoming a law for the government of the town. What would you 
say was the intention of that meeting? Would you say that the citi- 
zens were in favor of law or in favor of now law? How would you 
judge? You would judge from what a majority of them did. 

And if one of you gentlemen should be indicted for participating 
in this mass meeting, for the offense of being opposed to law and order, 
Mr. Franklin and these other gentlemen would say, in their appeals 
to the jury, that you and all of you were scoundrels and lawless citi- 
zens at heart; that you did not mean what you said when you voted 
for the resolution for the purpose of having certain laws enacted for 
the government of the people of the town. These gentlemen prose- 
cuting you would say that you were doing it for the purpose of cover- 
ing up your real intentions. Is not that so, gentlemen? And when 
some mountain man at Frankfort on the 25th of January, not a mem- 
ber of the meeting, should happen to say some violent words, these 
gentlemen immediately say that they gave utterance to to the real 
intention of the coming of the mountain people. They say that those 
people who were assembled in a peaceful manner and passed resolu- 
tion, begging and pleading that their votes be counted as cast; 
asking that our public servants not tarnish the fair name of our State 
with the overthrow of the most sacred of all the rights of the people; 
that it was a blatant mockery of their real purpose, and that they did 
no mean it. 

MOUNTAIN MEN ACTED IN THE OPEN. 

The mountain people held that meeting on the 25th of January 
when the noon-day sun was high in the heavens. There, in plain view 
of all the people of Frankfort, on the public square of the State, and 
on the threshold of the Capitol, witnessed by friends and foes alike. 
Was that the conduct of conspirators to murder? Ah, gentlemen, con- 
spiracies' to kill and murder one's fellow-man are not formed or carried 
out that way. I was never in a conspiracy, gentlemen, to do violence 
to anybody; but from what I have seen and what I know of humanity. 



Ill 

ewispiraoies are not framed in the opea. The crimee that fill the annals 
•f this country are not done with humanity gating on. Burglars make 
their way to your home in the dead hours of night, when yon and the 
rest of humanity are supposed to be embraced in the sweet arms of 
sleep. Thieves roam over the country and never lay hands on that 
which is not theirs when mortal eyes are supposed to see them. 
Rapists never select the crowded throughfares of our cities in which 
t© committ their fiendish crimes. Conspirators who seek the life of 
their fellow-men do not hold public meetings in the blaze of the noon- 
day sun, on the Capitol square of their State; in the midst ©f the 
camp of their intended victims and in their very presence. 

If the bringing of that mountain wowd was any part of a con- 
spiracy to murder, and if I had a hand in it, I ought to be sent to 
the asylum, and there, with raving maniacs as boon companions, spend 
the remainder of my days, in the charge of those whose duty it is to 
care for the helpless in head. But these gentlemen claim, both publicly 
and privately, in Court and out, that I am not a fool. Then, if I am 
not, credit me with more sense than to enter into a conspiracy to take 
human life with a thousand other fellow-conspirators and in the midst 
of a crowded city, with hundreds of those unfriendly to my cause look- 
ing on, and in the very heart of the camp of my suppose victims. 

The claim on the part of the Commonwealth that the bringing of 
the mountain crowd to Frankfort constituted a part of the conspiracy 
to kill Senator Goebel, is an evidence of the weakness of their own 
position. The sober-minded part of the country repudiates such a 
claim. The sense of the land says that could not be any part of a 
conspiracy, and for the sake of your own reputations, gentlemen, you 
had better abandon it. 

There is not a witness in the whole of the record who testifies 
that I ever had the remotest connection with any mountain man from 
the 25th to the 30th of Janury, except Cecil; Cecil, the indicted mur- 
derer, robber and rapist; Cecil, who had his allied talk alone with 
me; Cecil, who is swearing for and getting immunity; the saintly 
Cecil, who refused, he says', offers of money for murder from Taylor, 
liut who stands indicted for the robbery of Mr. Colgan for $2,100. There 
is no proof that I procured any of them or advised r.ny of them or 
tried to get any of them to kill William Goebel except the testimony 
of the pious and godly Cecil. Wharton Golden himself said that I did 
mot have any talk with him after the large body went home. Culton 
told you that he had no talk with me in reference to the men remain- 
ing over at Frankfort or the work to be done by them; that he never 
talked to me concerning the kiling of Goebel in his life. 

And the hopes of the prosecution upon which they cam base a. 
conviction is that the men came upon an unlawful mission, and while 
thus engaged in that unlawful mission that Senator Goebel was killed, 



112 

which claim you Ivnow, gentlemen, is unfounded from the fact that 
the men had neaiij- all gone home and, that the others who remained 
had as much right to remain in the city of Frankfort as you or I. 
And the court told you further, gentlemen, in the admission of testi- 
mony to show threats on the part of liie Democrats that they intended 
to take forcible possession of the offices as soon as the Legislature 
and the contest board passed upon same, that those men had a right 
to remain on those grounds for the purpose of -resisting any such 
attempt. If some one should try to take forcible possession of your 
home and throw you bodily out of it, you know that you would have 
the right to resist any such an illegal attempt, and you know further 
that you would have the right to call in your neiyhbors to help you 
resist it. Those men had the right, gentlemen, to remain on those 
grounds for that purpose, and that is why they did remain. The prose- 
cution will not deny that they had the right to remain there for the 
purpose of preventing or helping to prevent the Democrats or any- 
body else from taking forcible possession of those offices. And nobody 
claims with any evidence to support it, that any one of these moun- 
tain men who remained over at Frankfort on the 25th of January killed 
o^- had anything to do with the killing of Senator Goebel. 

Mr. Franklin did not believe, and does not now believe, that any 
one of those • len who remained over at Frankfort did the shooting 
that resulted in the death of William Goebel; for when he came to 
make the indictment against the men whom he claims killed Senator 
Goebel, he did not include within it, a single mountain man who came 
with the large crowd of mountain men, nor a single mountain man 
who remained over after the great majority had returned to their 
homes. And if no man who came with the mountain crowd killed 
Senator Goebel, even if I did bring them for a million unlawful pur- 
poses, how could I be held responsible for the deatn of Senator Goe- 
bel, if none of them had anything to do with the firing of the shot, nor 
was present when it was shot? 

Bear in mind, gentlemen, that no man who came with that crowd 
has ever been indicted for the firing of the shot that killed Senator 
Goebel. There has been only five men indicted for that — Harlan Whit- 
takr, who lives in Butler county, and who did not come down with the 
mountain crowd; Dick Combs, who lives, I think, In Lee County, and 
who had nothing to do with the mountain crowd; Jim Howard, vi^ho 
was not about the mountain crowd and had nothing to do with it and 
was not with it; Berry Howard, who was not about that mountain crowd, 
did not come with it and had nothing to do with it; and Henry E. 
Youtsey, who lives in Campbell County, and who was at Frankfort and 
did not come down and had nothing lo do with that mountain crowd. 
He says he did not. And when Mr. Franklin came to make the Indict- 
ments against the men whom he says shot and killed Senator Goebel, 



113 

he indicted no one of that mountain crowd. Mr. Franklin has admitted 
by his conduct that William Goebel was not shot by any man of that 
mountain crowd, because he did not indict any of the mountain men 
for doing it. He says that Goebel was killed by Jim Howard and 
Henry E. Youtsey. Howard did not get to Frankfort on the 30th day 
of January until within less than one hour before Goebel was shot, 
and five days after the mountain men had come to Frankfort, and 800 
out of the 1,000 had returned to their homes. Youtsey did not come 
with the mountain crowd, and had nothing to do with it, if his own 
testimony can be believed. 

Then, if no member of that mountain crowd fired the shot that 
killed Senator Goebel, and if other men did fire the shot, as the Com- 
monwealth claims by their actions in indicting others, then why should 
I be held responsible for bringing them down there? 

But suppose, for the sake of argument, that some of the members 
of that mountain crowd had killed Mr. Goebel; suppose that Jim 
Howard, and Berry Howard, and Henry E. Youtsey, and Dick Combs, 
and Harlan Whittaker had never been indicted; suppose that some of 
the mountain men who came down with that large crowd had been 
indicted as the ones who killed Senator Goebel, would it follow, as a 
proposition of law and as a matter of justice, that I ough^ to be con- 
victed? Should I be convicted, gentlemen, because I had the moun- 
tain men not come to Frankfort, Goebel might not have been killed? 
Should I be held responsible for every act of every mountain man 
because I was the cause of his being in Frankfort? Oh, no, gentlemen; 
that is not the law, and it has never been the law. Had I not been 
indicted for the murder of Senator Goebel, this trial would not now 
be in progresF here. Had I never been born, I could not have been 
indicted. Am I to be held responsible because the Creator of the 
universe gave me an existence here on earth? Were my trial not in 
progress here, it would not have to become necessary for the Com- 
monwealth and the defense to have summoned a lot of men from the 
mountains as witnesses here in this case. If some of these witnesses, 
who have been summoned here as witnesses for the defemse should, 
during their stay in Georgetown, rob a bank or plunder a store, or 
kill a man, would it be fair to hold me responsible for either robbery 
or murder, because had it not been for me the crime wowld not have 
happened, when, as a matter of fact, I had nothing to do with the 
crime? I was the cause of their being in Georgetown; I summoned 
them as witnesses, and still, after they got here, without my knowinf 
it, they entered into a conspiracy to rob a bank, or kill a man, if you 
please, and they do kill one of your Georgetown citizens, am I to be 
held responsible for that? And if I were the cause of those moun- 
tain men getting to Frankfort, and if, after they got there, they en- 
tered into a conspiracy to kill Senator Goebel, should I be held re- 



114 

Bpozifiible for that? It would be just as t^ir to hold me responsibl© 
for the supposed murder in Georgetown as it would to hold me re- 
sponsible for the murder of Senator Goebel, under such circumstances 
as that. 

The instructions in this case tell you that if I counseled, or ad- 
vised, or procured the murder of Senator Goebel, that then I should 
be convicted. And, if I counseled, advised and proceured the sup- 
posed murder here in Georgetown, I would be guilty. But I could not 
be guilty in either case unlessi I aounseled, advised or procured the 
murder. If, after those mountain men got to Frankfort, and while they 
were waiting for the case to be decided, they grew impatient and came 
to the conclusion that they would end the contest by the killing ot 
Senator Goebel, without my knowledge and without my procurement, 
and they did so kill him, is there a sane man upon top of earth who 
would conted that I ought to be held responsible for it? Is there a 
lawyer on either side of this case who would slander his professional 
reputation by asserting that I would? Will Mr. Franklin contend 
before you, in his argument, that if, after those mountain men came 
to Frankfort, that some of them got together and decided that they 
would kill Senator Goebel, without my knowledge, yea, even without 
my procurement, and did so kill him, that I ought to be held respon- 
sible for that, because, had it not been for me, they would not have 
been in Frankfort? No, gentlemen, he will make no such contention 
before you. We are all a weak, short-sighted set of human beings 
here in this world. Finite creatures with finite minds. Born into 
this world with imperfections and short-comings. Oh! gentlemen, if 
we could but lift the golden curtain that shields our view from the 
mysterious future; if we could but see beyond the heights and into 
to-morrow; if we could but know of approaching dangers that are 
coming to seal the doom of some part of humanity; if we but could 
see the pitfalls before our feet, a great deal cf the misfortunes and 
calamities and tragedies of life could be avoided. But no mortal man 
has been vouchsafed such gifts. There is but one who is omniscient; 
there is but one whose brain knows all; but one whose vision is clear 
enough to pierce the darkness of the future and tell what is to be 
to-morrow. If I could but have known that the coming of those moun- 
tain men would result in the death of Senator Goebel, if it did so 
result, they would never have been brought. If those ignorant people 
living at the base of Mt. Pelee, or those splendid Americans living 
at Johnstown had known what was about to happen to them, they 
would not have lost their lives. And for you, gentlemen, to say 
that I ought to have known that the bringing of the mountain men 
to Frankfort would result in the murder of Senator Goebel, is to re- 
quire of me more wisdom and foresight than it has ever pleased an AU)- 
wiee Creator to bestow on mortal man. Yot will not require it of me' 



115 

Sut if the prosecution can be relied upon to name the men who flr«4 
the fatal shot, none of the mountain men had aught to with it. N# 
one of them fired the shot; no one of them was present, aiding •r 
•betting those who did fire it. A different set of men altogether li«« 
feeeii indicted for that. 

GOV. TAYLOR'S PARDON. 

I>et us now, gentlemen, turn our attention, for a few minutes, t* 
tiie pardon issued to me by Gov. Taylor. It is claimed by the prosecu- 
tion that I was in a conspiracy with a number of others to bring 
about the death of Mr. Goebel, and that it was a part of the plan for 
<ror. Taylor to pardon all those implicated. And in support of this cott- 
tention they continue to say that Taylor did pardon myself and other*. 
Let us look at this a moment, gentlemen. Let us apply the test of rea- 
son to what they allege to be true and see if the ground they take i« 
tenable. In the first place, gentlemen, no one of the pardons was if 
sued earlier than in the afternoon of the 10th day of March, 1900. 
They were not issued, gentlemen, until after Culton had been arrested 
and lodged in jail; they were not issued until after warrants of arrest 
were issued for myself and my brother and Finley and old man Davis. 

The testimony in this case, is that on the night of the 8th day of 
March, 1900, Culton was arrested and an attempt was made to arrest 
old man Davis and myself at his home on Lewis street, in FVankfort, 
and that we made our escape to the State House square. The testi- 
mony, is that all during the day following that, old man Davis and my- 
self, stayed in the Register of Land office, and on the evening of that 
day, when we had to make our escape until the mad passion of the 
hour was over, pardons were issued to us as a matter of temporary 
protection. It is in evidence, gentlemen, that I meant only to go to the 
mountains of Kentucky and there remain until the excitement died 
away, and that then I meant to stand my trial. You remember that 
Capt. Davis was issued a pardon at the same time that I received 
mine. Who is it, gentlemen, that now thinks that old man Davis had 
anything to do with the murder of Senator Goebel? 

You remember that on the night of the ninth of March, after 
officers had tried to arrest him and me that I had a talk with Judge 
Yost as to what I should do. Judge Yost was my lawyer in my civil 
suit. Judge Yost thought it advisable that Capt. Davis and myself 
should go over to the State House grounds. He did not believe that 
we could possibly be protect 9$; by the civil authorities; that the state 
of excitment was such that we could not possibly be protected from 
mob violence. You remember that is the testimony I gave, gentlemen, 
and if I had not been telling the truth about it Judge Yost would 
have been called as a witness to contradict me. Judge Yost was a 
witness in the Ripley trial. He has been before your grand juries, Mr. 



116 

FrStiklin; yoit know to what he will testify; j-.ou know he did advise. 
Boe' that the civil authorities could not protect me. You remember, 
that'he stated that I could not possibly get a fair trial and that if I 
could get to the mountains of this State and remain there, until I 
could get a fair trial, and until the passion of the people subsided, he 
believed it would be the proper thing to do. You remember, gentlemen, 
Vititor Anderstin, one of the witnesses for the prosecution, testified 
that 1- wanted him to get Col. Breckinridge for me over the telephone 
ort-the morning of the 10th of March; I testified to the same thing, 
gentlemen. You remember I told you that I wanted to consult Col. 
Bre«Ckinridge as to what I should do, but that I was unable to get him. 
Remember that I said to you that. 

■''I had reasons why 1 wanted to be- away from Frankfort at that 
time. In the first place, I did not feel that the civil authorities there 
could protect me from mob violence, whatever may have been their 
efforts along the line to have done so. Excitement ran high. Passions 
were inflamed. 1 did not believe it was safe for me, or that I would 
be protected, if I surrendered at that time. That is one reason why I 
wanted to get awaJ^ Another one was that I had advised with Judge 
Judge Yost, a lawyer, about the matter and he thought it best for 
me that I be away until after the passions of the people subsided. 
Another reason is, that $100,000 had been appropriated with which to 
prosecute the men charged with connection in this affair. I was a 
poor boy. I did not have money of my own to fight properly a case 
of that sort. That is a great deal of money with which to prosecute 
anybody in a matter of that kiad. I ka«w Uia^ li wouli be aiMMt 
>ipossible to r!!]tBin»t« poIltSw S'siss tlr- ^:Tkl "f 'il'.l® mE9 ead 
especially in Franklin County, tbe sl« -m &«i»i«r A ik« eKiitemejit oi 
State. I did not know at that time, of course, that I could get a 
change of venue to this county. I did not believe that if I were tried in 
Franklin county, where excitement ran so high, that my innocence 
would be a shield to me in the courts. Taylor would not place a squad 
of soldiers around the jail to protect me. 

Gentlemen, I did not believe I could be protected by the civil 
authorities in Frankfort. I did not believe I could get a fair trial if I 
remained. I knew that my attempt to escape to the mountains was of 
expediency; I knew the dangers of arrest; 1 knew how attempted 
escape be construed; 1 knew how a pardon to me in this matter would 
be interpreted. I was not unmindful of '^e situation of affairs, and, 
gentlemen, I want you to put yourselves in my place; that is the best 
■way to determine what you would have done. 

PUT YOURSELF IN HIS PLACE. 

Suppose you had been elected to a State oflfice, as I was elected; 
suppose that the Republican contestant for Governor had been shot 



Ii7 

down as Senator Goebel was shot- down; .suppose that you were 
charged with the assassination of- the Republican -contestant for Gov-, 
ertlor; 'and suppose that the Republican press of the State were loud 
iri proclairning you guilty and were daily and hourly fanning the pas- 
sions of the people to a blaze. Suppose that the Republican Legisla- 
ture had' appropriated $100,000 with which to prosecute you; suppose 
that you were to be carried into the Eleventh district to be tried for 
the alleged conspiracy; suppose that you knew that in that district you 
wbuld be tried by a Republican Circuit Court; that a Republican Com- 
monwealth's Attorney would prosecute you; that the jurymen who 
tried you would be summoned by a Republican Sheriff, and when they 
we^e summoned they would all be Republicans; suppose you knew that 
you were to be tried in that Republican stronghold, while the people 
wfere drunk with passion and their blood was hot with rage; and. sup- 
pose that the prosecution against you had not only at their backs the 
stS'ong and powerful arm of the Commonwealth, with all its resources; 
btitit had, in addition to that, $100,000 of the people's money at its 
command with which to purchase testimony against you; and suppose 
your lawyers that you had employed in the civii suit, and upon whom 
you relied for counsel and advice, told you that you had better get 
away for the time being; that the people of the State were swept off 
their feet; and that, in time of excitement, people apparently go mad, 
and that their reason is dethroned; and suppose that your lawyer 
should say to you that you had better get a pardon and get away to 
save your life until the people came to themselves; suppose you knew 
that if you did get away, whether you had one pardon or a thousand, 
and whether you tried escape one time or a million; that you knew 
within your heart of hearts that you were not guilty of the crime with 
which you had been charged, and that in the end your good nam© 
would be vindicated; suppose all this, gentlemen; I will let each of 
you, in your own hearts, answer that— what would you have done? 

Why, it is not the first time, gentlemen, in the history of this 
country that innocent men have tried to escape the wrath of indignant 
people. We all know that Jefferson Davis, tbe President of the South- 
ern Confederacy, after the Civil War was over, and after he was 
threatened with arrest for treason against the United States, tried to 
escape in a woman's dress, and was captured in a cornfield. At any 
rate, that is the generally accepted version of it. Davis knew that 
he was not guilty of treason; he knew that he had fought for the 
South and its cause, a cause he believed to be right and to be his duty. 
He fought for home and for his people; his case failed and he was 
charged with treason and tried to escape, gentlemen, not because h« 
was guilty, but to save his life from the mad storm of passion that 
raged through the whole North. And you remember, gentlemen, that 
he also accepted a pardon for treason against this Government. H» 



118 

did not accept a. pardon, gentlemen, because he was guilty; he did m«t 
attempt to escape because he was guilty. 

So, gentlemen, this is not the first time in the his^tory of th.i« 
country that innocent men have tried to escape from unreasoning haX% 
and have accepted pardons for tiia.t which they were not guilty. What 
would you gentlemen have done had you been situated as I was situ- 
acted? Would you not also have accepted a pardon? Capt. John Davis 
tried to escape; he was arrested with me; he also was disguised as * 
•oldier; he, too, had a pardon in his pocket; and who is it that now 
claims that old man Davis was guilty of having any connection with 
the murder of Senator Goebel? The prosecution knows that he is not 
guilty. He has been given bond by them and sent home and told that 
he could remain with his wife and with his children. You know that 
he is not guilty, and yet he tried to escape. The very men whom th» 
prosecution now claims fired the fatal shot that resulted in the death 
of Senator Goebel have no pardons. Isn't it in evidence here that Jim 
Howard has no pardon? Isn't in proof that Youtsey has none? Theae 
are the men behind the gun, according to the prosecution, and yet 
neither of them have a pardon, while Capt. John Davis and Harlaa. 
Whittaker, who the world knows to be innocent of the crime charged 
against him, both have pardons. Then, what becomes of the claim ^t 
the prosecution that pardons were issued to those implicated in the 
murder of Senator Goebel? 

And if the pardon had been issued to me, as these gentlemea 
claim, I want to ask you if, you don't believe that I would have used 
a little common sense in the issuing of that pardon, if I had been 
implicated in the murder of Senator Goebel. I want to ask you, gentle- 
men, if you don't believe that I would have used a little common sense 
in regard to that matter? This pardon was issued on the 10th day of 
March, 1900. Senator Goebel was shot on the 30th of January, and did 
not die until the 3d day of February, and the contest committee did 
not try to declare Goebel to be Governor until the 2d and 3d days of 
February. It is not claimed by any body that he was legally declared 
Governor until the 19th of February. If I had been in a conspiracy 
to have killed Senator Goebel, don't you know that I would have had 
that pardon issued at a time when the act of Gov. Taylor would have 
beea legal? There is no question about the legality of his act before 
the contest committee decided against him. Why did I not have the 
the pardon issued after Senator Goebel was shot, and before the 
decision of the contest committee? There could not have been any 
doubt as to its legality at that time. The gentlemen must either think 
that I am a fool, or, at any rate, they attribute to me most idiotic 
things. After the contest commttree nan decided that Goebel was 
rightfully Governor of his State, and after he died and Gov. Beckham 
stepped into his shoes and began to act as Governor of this State, in 



119 

& room in the Capital Hotel at Frankfort, and the contest was carried 
to the Supreme Court of the United States, don't you know that If I 
had been guilty and had not had the pardon issued before the contest 
committee decided for Gov. Goebel, that we would have had Got. 
Beckham enjoined from acting as Governor until the Supreme Court 
of the United States passed upon the legality of his title, and befora 
it did pass upon it, the whole of the legal fraternity knows that under 
that state of case that the pardon would have been valid. 

Don't you know that if I had been guilty, as these gentlemen claim, 
and had hoped to have gotten a legal pardon, don't you know that I 
would have gotten a pardon during this time and would not hare 
waited until the contest committee and the courts decided aguinst 
■Gov. Taylor ? The pardon was issued, gentlemen, under the s'tate of 
the case that I have attempted to describe. It was issued not becau»* 
I was guilty, but issued like the one issued to Capt. John Davis and 
to Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederacy, and others. 

But this claim on the part of the Commonwealth in regard to th« 
pardon and to my attempted escape, is like other claims in other 
things. Whatever I do and wherever I go. the prosecution construe 
it into direct and conclusive evidence of guilty. When I went to Louis- 
vile and locked my office door, on former trials they said that it was 
■almost positive proof of my guilt. If I had failed to have locked it, 
it would have been more positive. When I told Burton in my office 
that I would withdraw from the meeting and have nothing further to 
with it, if violence was talked of, or contemplated, the prosecution 
says that I did not mean it; and when I called Todd to talk with Yout- 
sey and persuade him from any unbecoming conduct, they say that I 
didn't mean it; and when I told the men who came down -with the large 
crowd of people in front of the depot in Barbourville, that they must 
keep sober and conduct themselves in such a way as to cast no dis- 
credit on our end of the State, the prosecution says that the reason 
of that was, that I wanted them to keep sober in order that they might 
murder their fellow-man more effectively. Mr. Hendrick told you that 
I perjured myself on the witness stand because I testified with calm- 
ness and deliberation. What would he have said if I had testified 
otherwise? He said that I was guilty because I left my office for 
Louisville the Tuesday morning before the tragedy, and that I am 
doubly guilty because I returned to my office after the shooting. What- 
ever I do, gentlemen, it is twisted into damning evidence against me, 
and when I accept a pardon and try to escape to the mountains of 
Kentucky, they say that it is positive proof of my guilt, when you or 
any one else, who values his life, would have conducted himself as I 
did, under the circumstances that existed. 



120 

HIS ACTfONS PROCLAIM HIS INNOCENCE. 

And, gentlemen, there is proof in this case that rebuts all pre- 
sumption of guilt that might arise in the minds of the most skeptical, 
either from my accepting a pardon or from my attempting to escape, 
and that is gentlemen, that at all times and under all circumstances 
I have maintained my innocence, not by my words alone, but by my 
actions as well. Murder will out, gentlemen, and had I been guilty of 
the murder of Goebel, I certainly would never have appealed my case 
after the first jury had rendered a verdict of guilty and sentenced me 
to the penitentiary for life. "We all know that the secret of murder 
cannot be kept. 

. Daniel Webster, in one of the finest criminal speeches of his whole 
life, said- concerning the fact that murder will out: "Such a seoret 
is .safe nowhere in the whole creation of God. There is neither nook 
nor corner where the guilty can bestow it and say it is safe. The 
human heart was not made for the residence of such an inhabitant.' 

And it is in accordance wuh the experience of mankindi that mur- 
der will out. I have maintained all the time, and now maintain, that 
the murder of Senator Goebel will be known. Could I have afforded 
it, had I been connected with it in the slightest, to have appealed my 
case after having been given a life sentence the first time? Could I 
have afforded to have appealed my case after I had been given a life 
sentence the second time? Supose that one of you gentlemen had been 
guilty of the awful crime of assassinating the leader of the Republican 
party, and suppose that you were being prosecuted in a Republican 
county, before a Republican Circuit Judge, with a Republican Sheriff 
to summon the jury, with a Republican prosecuting attorney to prose- 
cute you, with the resources of the great Commonwealth of Kentucky 
at his disposal, and with $100,000 laid at his feet to unearth the mur- 
derer, with detective prying into every nook and corner of this Com- 
monwealth and into the secret of every home within its confins, and 
poeple daily making confessions for immunity — I ask, if you had been 
guilty of the awful crime of assassination under such circumstances 
as these, and had been given a life sentence, I ask you if you would 
not have acepted imprisonment with open arms and risked your 
friends to have, at some time come to your relief? 

If you were guilty, gentlemen, you would not know on what day 
that guilt would shine forth like a blazing sun; you would not know 
at what hour your- connection with the murder would become known 
to the world, with one great political party, to say the least of it, 
trying to make known your guilt; with the resources of the State and 
$100,000 and droves of detectives working to that end. Youl would 
not know on what trial your life would pay the forfeit of your con- 
nection with that murder. I ask you, gentlemen, as sensible men, 
would any of you have appealed your case the first time under the cir- 



121 

cumstances that I have described? Would you have appealed it a 
s^cpnd time? No, gentlemen, you would not. No one of you would, 
had you been guilty. Neither would I, gentlemen. I would have been 
glad- to have saved my life and looked forward to some time when my 
friends could come to my reliefe and secure my liberation. 

Put yourselves in my place. Suppose, Mr. Booth, you were the 
defendant in this case instead of me. Supose that you had your case 
in the Court of Appeals the second time, November 30, 1902. Suppose 
on that day Henry Youtsey had given a statement to the country that 
he was willing to go on the witness stand and tell all he knew. 
Suppose that you were alleged to be implicated with him in the murder 
of Senator Goebel. Suppose the prosecution had always maintained 
that the fatal shot was fired from your office and that you were instru- 
mental in having it fired from there. Suppose you had been convicted 
on two former occasions by two juries, on the theory that Youtsey and 
others had gotten the key from you or your brother, as a means of 
entry to the office. Suppose the minority of the Court of Appeals had 
accepted that view of it, and' handed down dissenting opinions in 
your case. Suppose that most of the testimony against you was the 
testimony of star witnesses, swearing for immunity. Suppose you' 
knew that the prosecution had always been able to prove by such men, 
any statement it desired. 

Suppose that the Court of Appeals that had been politically your 
friends, had changed its complexion and had become politically your 
foes. Now, I want to ask you this question: If you were implicated 
■with Youtsey in the murder of Senator Goebel, and he was declaring 
*iat he intended to take the witness stand and tell all about it, wouldn't 
/ou have ceased to fight your case at that moment? Wouldn't you 
have had your lawyer go before the Court of Appeals and dismiss your 
case and have gone to the penitentiary, and possibly have saved your 
life in a future trial? 

Wouldn't I have done that? Wouldn't any one with a spoonful of 
brains in his cranium have pursued that course? Or wouldn't I have 
had my lawyers, by dilatory tactics, pushed my case over into the 
January term of the Court, of Appeals at the beginning of 1903, when 
it became Democratic, and let those Democratic Judges affirm tke 
decision in my case, and go to the penitentiary. No public censure 
would have come to me, because ostensibly, I would have fought my 
case to the bitter end. I did not do that; I am not guilty. 

I am not guilty; my conduct proves that. And if your verdict in 
this case should be "We agree to find the defendant guilty," if, by 
your verdict, you should blight and ruin the life of one of your fellow 
citizens, let me say to you now, gentlemen, that you will regret it the 
longest day you live. I am inocent, gentlemen; some day the world 
will know it. But when your verdict is rendered and you are dismissed 



122 

and discharged from this case, if it should become knowQ to- 
morrow that your verdict was no less than murder, your power to 
undo the wrong and palliate the crime you would commit, would be 
beyond your reach. You can neither correct nor modify it. All the 
sleepless nights you would spend over it could not alter it; all of your 
bitter tears of regret could not change it. Your sobbing, aching hearts 
and stinging consciences would go with you to your grave, and still 
you would have done that which your suffering could not change; your 
agonies could not alter. 

But, gentlemen, you will not render such a verdict. The facts 
proved in this case do not warrant a conviction. The law does not 
authorize it, and you are going to give me my liberty. The scenes of 
this trial are rapidly coming to a close. You and I will part, po«s.ibly 
never to meet on earth again. I never cast my eyes on you until the 
trial began; I may never see you more. At the furthest, gentlemeu, we 
will all soon be laid in the icy arms of death. We owe it to ourselves, 
to our families and to our country and to our God, to be honest mea 
while we live. Whatever fate befalls us, let us do our part of the 
duties of life and meet all its responsibilities like men. Let not our 
pathway, while we live, be filled with cruelties to the helpless, wrongs 
to the unfortunate and injustice to the innocent. 

We are a band of brothers, sent here to earth to remain but a 
little while, to fitly prepare ourselves for complete enjoyment in the 
world to come. I know of no better way to prepare for the happy 
realms above than by doing good to others here below. You have it 
in your power to lead an innocent man to the gallows, to prison, or to 
liberty. And remember, that the good you do to others, your upright- 
ness of life, your stand for humanity and truth, will follow you to 
commend you. Whether in the future you roam over distant countries 
or sail over unknown seas, or whether you spend the remainder of your 
days on earth here amid the best civilization, the most hospitable 
people upon which the sun of heaven has ever shown; wherever you 
may be and in whatever circumstances placed, if you do this day's 
business as justice and innocence and truth demands that it should 
be done, you will always look back upon it as the most glorious days' 
work of your whole life. 

When the burden of many years and cares, and the frost of many 
winters and the decrepitude natural to old age are bringing you nearer 
to the dark waters of death! when you have retired from the battles 
and trifles of a busy life; when you are caring less about the politics 
and policies of this world, and more about your safe arrival upon the 
shores of the next; when the mysteries surrounding this awful murder 
shall have cleared away and the guilty be known, and the innocent are 
relieved of suspicion; when it is known to this world, and it will be 
known, that an innocent young man was torn from a position of 



123 

honor to which his fellow countrymen had elevated him, and driven 
like a common criminal all over this country in shackles and chains- 
and forced to pine away his young life in a prison cell with worthless 
negroes, crawling lice and creeping vermin; then, gentlemen, your 
kearts will bound with the joy of youth, and your good names will be 
keralded over the earth as being just men; men whose oats and whose 
sense of justice and devotion to duty lifted them above the mad pas- 
sion® and prejudices of the hour, and had them render a verdict in 
accordance with the law and the evidence and justice. It will be a ver- 
dict, gentlemen, of which your children and grandchildren will be 
proud; one that our country will point to with pride. It will bless you 
and yours as long as life lasts, and be a passport into the realms of 
bliss beyond. 

And I know that you are going to give me my liberty, gentle- 
men. I feel it in the very air. I see it in the faces of this vast crowd 
of listeners whose very hearts are bleeding because of the agonies I 
have suffered and the wrongs I have had to endure. Witness how their 
tears are flowing because they live in a country where a crime worse 
and blacker than the awful crime of assassination has been inflicted 
upon one of their fellow-men, under the forms of law and in the name 
of justice. I feel that you, gentlemen, will say by your verdict, that 
you deplore the wrongs of the past; and that you will put it beyond 
the reach of mortal man to again repeat them in this case. I believe 
you will say that while Kentuekians are the quickest to do wrong that 
they are the soonest to repent. 

Gentlemen, there are too many men swearing for immunity in 
this case; too many swearing for money; too many detectives; too 
many star witnesses. I had hoped to discuss at some length the star 
witness in this case, but I have already taxed your patience too long. 
I wanted to tell you, when Col. Campbell, with whip in hand, took a 
front seat in the band wagon of safety and began to conduct th& 
course of these procedings, and ordered that all who would ride with 
him should have everlasting life, so far as he was concerned; a safe 
journey through the inviting fields of freedom, amd a continued feast 
on that $100,000 reward fund; and that all who failed to take ad- 
vantage of this golden opportunity should meet with death and de- 
struction; how Golden took early advantage of this blessed oppor- 
tunity, climbed over the front wheels of the band wagon of immunity, 
and took a soft seat my the side of his Savior, Col. Tom C. Campbell. 

I wanted to tell you how Culton was lead, on the arm of his 
brother-in-law, Ed Hogg, into the room of Col. Campbell, at the Capital 
Hotel, at Frankfort, and there told such a story as restored him to 
kis liberty, his wife and loved ones. I wanted to tell you how Cecil 
found his way from California into the home of the Commonwealth's 
Attorney, and from there to the grand jury room, and from there to 



124 

liberty, and, as per agreement, came here to Georgetown and tried to 
swear my life away. It was my desire to tell you how Youtsey had 
began making confessions within six hours after he was lodged in. 
jail, and how he said at that time to Col. Campbell: "I never discussed 
the killing of Goebel with Caleb Powers." And know he afterwards 
changed that story when he had been kept on bread and water for 
eight consecutive days in a prison cell at the penitentiary at Frank- 
fort. I wanted to tell you something of his pretended "fits," on his 
own trial, and how he tried to become a star witness against me 
during my first trial; how he accepted a life sentence in the peniten- 
tiary for alleged complicity in Goebel's murder, and how, at all times, 
he had maintained his innocence to his own dear wife. I wanted to 
tell you something of how Golden and Culton and Cecil and Youtsey, 
according to their own statements, wanted to kill and murder, before 
Goebel's death, and how, now, they have pious longing in their saintly 
(?) souls to spread the truth broadcast over the land. I wanted to tell 
you with what "coming" appetites they have testified; how little they 
knew when they began testifying and how much they all know now; 
how they have given to the world new and revised editions of "all they 
kno" concerning the killing of Mr. Goebel. 

It frequently occurs that books of various characters are often 
revised, giving to the world the latest and the best thoughts of authors 
on the subjects treated. But it is the first time that I have ever 
known of the sworn testimony of a witness in court being issued in so 
many new and revised editions. It has always been my idea that a 
witness was sworn to tell the truth, and the whole truth, on his first 
examination, and that he is supposed to do it. It has been my experi- 
ence, gentlemen, that instead of one memory increasing with age, that 
it often becomes faulty and treacherous. It is the experience of 
humanity, gentlemen, that the further in the point of time, events are 
removed from us, the more dimly we see them. Things that were 
clear and vivid when they occurred, become faintand shadowy in the 
lapse of time. But these star witnesses furnish us a remarkable and 
peculiar exception to the rule that applies to all honest humanity. The 
further they are removed from the fatal and unfortunate tragedy of 
January 30th, 1900, the more vivid is their memory; the more useful 
their knowledge. 

I would like to show you how Golden's alleged conversations 
always occured with me when I was alone, except two instances where 
he is o"^erwhelmingly contradicted by others; how Culton's alleged 
conversations always occurred with me when I was alone, except on 
one instance, and in that instant we find him contradicted by Messrs. 
Page, Howard, Van Zant, Davidson and others; how Cecil always had 
his alleged conversations with me when I was alone, except where 
-he is contradicted by Van Zant, Davidson, Page and others; how 



125 

Youtsey always had his alleged damaging conversations when I was 
entirely alone; how Broughton had his alleged conversation with me 
when I was alone; how Noaks said he always talked to me alone. Is 
this not a remarkably strange state of case, that these star witnesses 
always talked to me when I was alone, and putting it out of my power 
to contradict their alleged conversations by others than myself. 

And is it not stranger still, that Golden and Culton and Noaks 
and Anderson and Youtsey and Cecil and Broughton were the only 
ones to whom I confided my intention to murder? Is it not strange, 
that out of the number of prominent and reputable men with whom 
I associated at Frankfort, that not a single one has ever been pro- 
duced to prove my/ murderous plans? Is it not most remarkable that 
I did not converse with the leaders of the party and representative 
citizens about the way the contest should be settled — about the surest 
way for me to hold the office for which I was contending? Has it 
never occurred to you, as it has to all other sensible people of the 
country, that if I talked to Golden and Culton and Noaks and Ander- 
son and others of like liver ex^^lusively about the best way to settle 
the contest, that I must have been a fool of the first water? Does it 
not strike you, gentlemen, as being most peculiar that the only people 
in the whole State who had my entire confidence during these stirring 
times, were Noaks and Anderson, who are now confessed perjurers, 
and Golden, Culton, Cecil and "ioutsey, who are now under indictment 
in this case, and swearing for immunity? 

Is it not strange that the now pious Broughton recommended, as 
he says, his own brother as a suitable man to kill Senator Goebel 
before the tragedy, and at this trial had to be run down by Detectives 
Hardin and Griffin, before he could be gotten to the witness stand to 
testify for the Commonwealth? There are reasons for all these 
things. 

A PLAGUE OF DETECTIVES. 

There have been too many detectives in this case; too many law- 
yers playing the part of detectives. There has been too much of an 
effort to convict some one more or less high in politics, and too little 
attention paid to the prosecution of the real murderer. You know this 
policy was expressed by Col. Campbell in his first speech in my case, 
when he said: "Small gratification would it be to those looking for 
revenge, if such there were, to have a 'wretch kern' from the High- 
lands convicted and hung. Such a man, if necessary, should be 
turned loose to the end tha the conspirators who procured the cow- 
ardly deed to be done might be convicted." You see, gentlemen, they 
have publicly expressed that they cared nothing for the "little fishes;" 
that it was their desire to convict more prominent men. 

Look at this spirit of the prosecution, together with the fact that 
detectives have played a most conspicuous part in all these trials, and 



126 

w© are not astonished, or should not be, at the prosecution proving 
alibis for such men as Johnson, or the production of so many star 
■witnesses; such men aS' Noakes, Anderson and Weaver. We need not 
be surprised that such a man as Golden is to-day enjoying his liberty; 
and that Culton is a boon companion of those whose duty it is to 
prosecute him, and that Cecil is getting his liberty for his testimony, 
and that Youtsey expects^ his feet soon to walk on fredom's soil for his 
services here as a witness. 

There can be no doubt, gentlemen, but that the detectives have 
played a most important part, and a most damnable part, in the pro- 
duction of the evidence in this case. You remember, Col. Campbell 
said in his first speech to the jury in my case: "Detectives were 
called in, but they were baffled like the hounds in the pursuit of th« 
fox which jumped to the sapling over the precipice, and then under 
the ledge of rock." He says that in that dilemma that Mr. Frankiln 
said to him one evening: "You are not known in Eastern Kentucky; 
go there," There is no doubt but that he went there, gentlemen, for 
he met Robert Noakes at Big Stone Gap, undr the non de plume of 
Cleinmire. Mr. Campbell said in his speech: "Men whose time was 
worth $5 a day worked in the mines of Bell County for less than one- 
fifth of that sum for the purpose of accounting for their presence in 
that county. One man painted fences and rocks in Laurel County 
with signs, and gave away hundreds of bottles of mMicine for the 
sole purpose of accounting t© such fellows as Jim Sparks and Jim 
Howard and others of like kidney as to why he was in that county." 

And, gentlemen, we do not have to rely upon Col. Campbell'* 
statement that detectives have been very busy from the very begin- 
ning of this prosecution. You remember, that Golden testified that 
Tom Cromwell, a detective, who had been up in Knox County, came 
to the Capital Hotel, in Frankfort, about the 2nd of March, 1900, and 
wrote Golden a note to come over to the Capital Hotel. You remem- 
ber, that Golden told you that in response to the invitation to meet 
Tom Cromwell at the Capital Hotel, that he presented himself in per- 
son, and the next morning, at the early hour of 5 o'clock, he was speed- 
ing away over the country to the historic city of Cincinnati In the 
arms of his savior, Col. Tom Campbell. 

You remember when the theory of this case was being formulated, 
the theory that the shot was fired from the office of the Secretary 
of State, we find detectives playing important parts in that matter. 
You remember that Mr. D. Mead Woodson, that expert gentleman and 
expert witness. These expert witnesses are always a remarkable set 
of felows; they can get out here in the streets of Gorgetown, and 
measure a cow's track and tell you the price of butter in New York 
City. And when this man Woodson was down at the hackberry tree 
proving to a mathematical certainty, with his little surveying pfns and 



127 

a yarn string, that the shot that killed Goebel was fired from the 
ofl&ce of the Secretary of State, he told you that Robert Harding and 
Dee Armstrong were present on that occasion. Who are Robert Har- 
ding and Dee Armstrong? They are detectives; the paid puppets of 
the prosecution who have lent their gallant services, sacrificing (?) 
services to the unearthing of the guilty (?) in this prosecution. When 
Golden was preparing to confess; when he was getting ready to turn 
State's evidence, we see the finger of Detective Tom Cromwell in the 
matter. When the bullet was found in the hackberry tree we find 
Dee Armstrong and Robert Harding officiating on that occasion. You 
remember the testimony of that most charming and most winsome 
lady. Miss Ella Smith by name, of the town of Barbourville, whose be- 
witching manner and seductive smiles captivated the hearts of all. 
You remember that Miss Ella Smith, who was a witness for the prose- 
cution, toW you that Tom Cromwell wrote out her statement for her 
in Barbourville, and she committed it to memory and recited it for 
us. She recited it well. 

Detective Cromwell swore out a warrant for my arrest; he swore 
out a warrant for the arrest of old man Davis. Detective Russell took 
a number of identifying witnesses to see Jim Howard. A number of 
them assisted in my arrest at Lexington. So you see, gentlemen, that 
detectives have been swarming the State like a drove of hungry vul- 
tures. You find them in the Capital Hotel when Golden, confesses; 
you find them at Barbourville before he confesses; you find them at 
the hackberry tree when a block of wood was taken out of the tree; 
you find them present when the block of wood was opened; you find 
them in Cincinnati when Golden first confessed; you find them in 
Lexington with him after he confessed; you find them swearing out 
warrants of arrest; you find them everywhere. There are too many 
detectives and too much perjury in this case. There are too many 
men who have their arms up to their elbows in that $100,000 reward. 

THAT CORRUPTION FUND. 

Do you want to help distribute that money, gentlemen? Do you 
want to become co-partners in that affair; if you do, the opportunity 
is yours. You have an earnest invitation on the part of the Common- 
wealth. If you want to help distribute that money you have the 
privilege; $5,000 is offered for my conviction. You make it possible 
for those hired detectives to get their share of the spoils, for if the 
detectives do not get the $5,000 offered for my conviction, who does 
get it, gentlemen? No part of the $5,000 offered for my scalp goes for 
the purpose of bringing the witnesses here, either for the Common- 
wealth of the defendant. The State pays for the bringing of witnesses 
here for the Commonwealth, and the defendant has to pay the ex- 
penses of his own witnesses. It is not for the purpose of keeping wit- 



128 

nesses of the Commonwealth here; they are allowed $1.00 per day, or 
part of a day, they stay here. It is not for the purpose of paying their 
mileage or their wajK to the train. The law allows them more than 
enough for that. It does not go to the paying of lawyers in this case, 
for the law that set apart the appropriation says that none of the 
money is to go for the payment of the lawyers. It is not for the pur- 
pose of paying Mr. Franklin here for his services. He is allowed a 
certain salary, and is paid by the State. It is not for the purpose of 
paying you, gentlemen, for your services. You are allowed your per 
■diem by the law of the State. 

Then, to whom does it go? It must go to somebody. It must be 
paid for some purpose. There is no stipulation in the law appropri- 
iating this enormous fund, saying that any part of it shall be to per- 
jurers and suborners of perjury. But such people will lay claim to 
that money. Did not Detectives Dee Armstrong and Robert Harding 
tell you from this witness stand that they expected to lay claim to this 
money if I am convicted? The detectives who have furnished the 
proof in these cases, and those who "have sworn lies for pay, will lay 
claim to this money. Do not be deceived about it. They are now 
claiming it. Suppose Campbell should say to the'detectives that he needs 
certain testimony; Harding and Armstrong would give ten witnesses 
ten dollars each, in addition to the Commonwealth's paying them a 
dollar a day and so much mileage, to come and testify to certain state 
of facts. It would not be good policy for any witness to swear to too 
much. That would not be skilled perjury. It would be bunglesome 
subornation. Here you have these ten witnesses swearing to certain 
statements for the sum of $100. That is a small amount, but the 
evidence of ten witnesses is considerable testimony; $200 at that rate 
would get twenty witnesses.- That is net much of $5,000. 

You ask: Do you mean to say that witnesses can be bought that 
cheap? I answer: Yes; part of them can, but not all. It takes more 
for some. But you can put it down, gentlemen, that most every man 
who sells his vote at an election would sell this testimony. You know 
that there are plenty of these. You know that there are more of them 
than the mass of humanity supposes. So you see how easy it is to 
buy testimony when you have the money. But one says: It looks like 
some of them would be caught up with. And so they have been in this 
case. Weaver was caught up with; Anderson was caught up with; 
Noakes was caught up with; Davis Harrod, at Frankfort, was caught 
up with and is no more a witness in these cases; D. Sinclair, the man 
who forged the telegrams at Frankfort, was caught up with and is 
no more used as a witness in this case. 

Yes, it is true that some of them are caught up with, but the 
smooth suborner or perjurer knows more than to do it that way. He 
has the perjurer to meet you on the road somewhere or to be with 



129 

you alone somewhere. Golden says that we always talked alone when 
we were talking about private matters. The smooth suborner and per- 
jurer has no one present but you and the perjurer, and he has him 
say that while you are with him at a certain timeand place, that you 
made such and such a statement. You have to admit being with him 
at the time and place. There is no one to help you out of your pre- 
dicament; no one to deny for you that you made such a statement; 
no one to contradict the witnesses against you except yourself; no 
one to contradict them in this case except myself. Then, of course, 
the Commonwealth argues that my own testimony sustains the witness 
against me, and that, of course, I am trying to syear myself out. There 
is no way to contradict the pejurer save by my own testimony. 

Such has been the testimony of all the stars against me. Such 
has been the testimony of Anderson and Noakes and Golden and Cul- 
ton from the very beginning; such is the testimony of Youtsey and 
Cecil. Detectives and shrewd lawyers know how to prepare such 
testimony. That is the business of, by far, too many of them. Culton 
is a lawyer himself. He knows how to fix his. Golden's brother is a 
lawyer; he knows how to fix him. Col. Campbell could suggest to 
Golden or Cultcn that a certain bit of testimony was needed and for 
him to try and remember it. They are in the remembering business. 
It stands them in hand to remember well. They know it. It needs no 
detective work to encourage Golden and Culton to remember well. It 
needs no offer to them of money in the event that I am convicted, to 
spur them up to their best as perjurers. There are other ineentives 
for them. 

DETECTIVES SUBORN PERJURY. 

Then, you ask. does the Commonwealth's Attorney endorse it all, 
and is he a party to :t all? I answer, no. I have known of cases where 
he has turned off wculd-be perjurers. The detectives go in the neigh- 
borhood of the witness. He suborns him. He then writes down to 
Mr. Franklin that a certain man would make a good witness for the 
Commonwealth. Mr. Franklin has him summoned either before the 
grand jury or as a witness in some of these cases. The witness tells 
his stcry. He makes a good witness, andi Mr. Franklin puts him on 
the ."^tand. That is a part of the evidence of conviction. And after 
the conviction is had, the detective will come forward claiming the 
$5, COO for the discovery of the testimony that leads to the conviction. 

Oh, gentlemen, be not deceived in this matter. They are alreadf 
claiming it. It is a matter of current history, gentlemen, with which 
yen are all familiar, that Dee Arntstrong and Robert Harding, of Louis- 
ville, who have been the paid puppets of the prosecution in the inves- 
tigation of clues, and who have attended every trial of my case, and 
who are here now, have already put in a claim for my former <jon- 



130 

viction, alleging that they furnished the evidence with which to do 
it. You remember the Fiscal Court of Franklin County offered $1,000 
reward for the arrest and conviction of Senator Goebel's assassin. 
Detectives Armstrong and Harding have put in a claim for that 
money, and ellege they furnished the evidence upon which Youtsey 
and Jim Howard and myself were convicted. They also have put in 
a claim for $5,000 for the conviction of Youtsey. They have been 
here on the grounds marshaling and training their witnesses, and now 
await your verdict, in the hope that they will be well paid for that 
marshaling and training. Did not Armstrong tell you that? The de- 
tectives are waiting for that $5,000 reward, gentlemen; that is the 
reason why they have bought so much testimony. They would pur- 
chase it against you as readily as they do against me, if there were 
as much in it to them. 

Be not deceived about it. Do you think there is enough evidence 
in this case to convict me? Is there a single man on this jury who 
thinks it? If there is, I want to say to that man that if he will let 
Col. Campbell suppose two things, he can convict him of the murder 
of Mr. Goebel. If you will let him suppose that you were an active 
partisan Republican in the campaign and contests of 1899 and 1900, 
and that you went to Frankfort a few daj»s before Senator Goebel was 
killed — that is all that is necessary, these two things. ' You may say 
you dod not understand what your being a Republican or going to 
Frankfort would have to do with the killing of Mr. Goebel, or how you 
could be convicted for that. Let us see. 

In the first place, he would charge, by indictment, a Golden, and 
and a Culton, and a Youtsey, and a Cecil, who reside in your neigh- 
borhood, or who were thrown with you in the transaction of business 
in the winter of 1899 or 1900. And you have got Goldens and Cultons 
and Yout&eys and Cecils and Broughtons in your community, gentle- 
men. Be not deceived by it. There are men in you neighborhood who, 
if they were indicted for an offense like this and could get their liberty 
by testifying against you, would swear anything that they were told 
to swear. You know that. There are men in your community who 
would swear your life away for even a small slice of $100,000. You 
know that. 

COULD CONVICT ANY JURYMAN. 

Let me show you how you could be convicted for killing Mr. 
Goebel, by letting Col. Campbell suppose the two things of which I 
have just spoken. He would prove by some Wharton Golden whom 
you had working for you on your farm, that you were an active and 
violent Republican. This would be known to be true; this would help 
strengthen his testimony against you. He would prove by him that 
while you and he were alone together on the farm and about your 



131 

place of business, that y«u had said to him that Goebel ought to be 
killed; that if you were up at Frankfort and no one else would kill 
him, that you would kill him yourself. That is what Finley Anderson 
swore against me. He would prove by him that you discussed plans 
with him to kill Goebel in the Capital Hotel, on the streets of Frank- 
fort, and from the office of the Secretary of State. He would prove 
by him that you said that you would be willing to kill off enough 
Democrats in the Legislature to make a Republican majority, and that 
you also endorsed the killing of the Democratic members of the Court 
of Appeals. He wouFd prove by him that you said' out at your bam 
one morning that if things didn't settle up at Frankfort pretty soon, 
that you intended to go up there and make use of a few Colts 45s or 
a Marlin rifle. 

He would prove by Culton that he lived in your neighborhood dur- 
ing the contests of 1899 and 1900; that he often passed your home, 
and that you and he Had frequent talks about the contest at Frank- 
fort, and that you said to him that you believed that if a large body 
of mountaineers would come to Frankfort with their guns and either 
kill enough Democrats, to make a Republican majority or kill Mr. 
Goebel, that the contest would end favorably to the Republicans); that 
you said that -^hen Goebel was dead and in hell that the Democrats 
would not have another man who could hold them together. He would 
prove by him that you and he had come here to Georgetown about the 
middle of January, 1900, and that you showed him a letter you had 
written to Gov. Taylor enclosing $25 to help defray the expenses' of 
the mountaineers to Frankfort and advising their coming, and that 
your judgment was that when they got to Frankfort they should give 
the Legislature thirty minutes to settle the contest, and if they didn't 
do it, to kill the last damned one of them. 

He would prove by some Broughon in your county that you ap- 
proached him one day to find out who, in his judgment, would be 
a good man to kill Goebel, and that he referred you to Cecil and Steele. 
He would prove by some Cecil and Steele in your neighborhood that 
you did approach them and tried to get them to go to Frankfort and kill 
Mr. Goebel, and discussed with him how it could be done from the office 
of the Secretary of State. He would prove by Youtsey that he lived 
in your neighborhood before he went to Frankfort; that he knew you 
well; that at the time of the Governor's contest that he was at work 
in the hallway of the Executive building at Frankfort a day or two 
before the killing at the time you went to Frankfort, and that you 
said to him that you believed the only way to settle the contest was 
to have Goebel killed. He would prove by him that he fully endorsed 
that sentiment, and^ said that he had been trying to do that for sev- 
eral days and suggested that he now had a slick scheme by which he 
could go into the office of the Secretary of State and pull down the 



132 

window blind and shoot him from that office window and then run 
down the stairway, and that nobody would ever know it. He would 
prove by him that you endorsed that plan and pulled out of your 
pocket $50 and gave it to him and told him to carry it out, and that 
you would leave the details of it to him, and that you would go in and 
see Taylor and have him call out the militia to protect Youtsey and 
others after the killing. 

Take this state of the case, gentlemen, and why wouldn't I have 
a stronger case against you than they have against me? The moun- 
taineers' came to Frankfort on your advise; the shot fired from the 
office of the Secretary of State upon your endorsement; the militia 
was called out upon your suggestion. How would you get out of it, 
Mr. Rice? Golden, Culton, Cecil, Youtsey, have testified that there 
was no one present at the time each of them had their elleged talk 
with you. You could only contradict them with your own testimony, 
and the prosecution would say that you are the defendant in the case 
and swearing for your liberty and could not bebelieved, and, besides 
that, they would say that your own testimony corroborated the testi- 
mony of all these witnesses against you. They would say that you 
admit having Golden working for you on your farm and admit being 
with him at the time and places he aleges and that the only thing 
you deny is the damaging part of the conversations; that you sub- 
stantiate the testimony of Culton by admitting that you did frequently 
talk with him at your gate during the contest, and that you admit 
coming to Georgetown on the occasion testified to by him. They 
would say that you corroborate Broughton by admitting that he lived 
in your neighborhood, and that he did have an opportunity of talking 
to you, and by the further fact that Cecil and Steele say that you 
approached them on flie mission you talked to Broughton about. 
They would say that you corroborate Youtsey by admitting 
that you were at Frankfort at the time he testified to, and by the 
further fact that the shot was fired from the office of the Secretary of 
State and by the further fact that the militia was called out after he 
shooting. 

If the jury who tried you should give full faith and credit to the 
testimony, there is no reason why that you or any other man in the 
community could- not be convicted with $100,000 and a horde of un- 
scrupulous detectives to buy up the proof. Golden, Cecil, Youtsey, 
Culton and Broughton say that they had these talks with me, and that 
no one was present but themselves and me. I never had the alleged 
talks with these men. The Commonwealth is after a conviction in 
this case, and Dee Armstrong and Robert Harding are after the 
money. They will have rival claimants. Other detectives have been 
active. Detective Griffin, of Somerset, will be a formidable con- 
testant. 



133 

By your verdict, gentlemen, do you propose to further this 
nefarious work? Do you propose to be a party to the talking away of 
the liberty of an innocent man? Answer me that, gentlemen. And 
you will be a party to it if you bring in a verdict of guilty, because, 
without such a verdict, they cannot get the money. As a citizen and 
tax-payer of this Commonwealth, do you desire to plunder the treas- 
ury of this State? In order to get the money to pay irresponsible 
detectives to suborn witnesses to swear away the lives of one of your 
innocent fellow-citizens? The opporunity is yours, gentlemen. The 
Commonwealth invites you to embrace it. "Will you do it? How can 
you gentlemen bring in a veridct of guilty when the foundation stones 
of this prosecution are composed of perjurers? How can you bring in 
a verdict of guilty when you see that all the material testimony in this 
case received its being and was brought to fruition at the hands of 
conscienceless detectives and other suborners or perjurers? 

BEGS THEM NOT TO ERR. 

Two juries have sat upon this case before and have said by their 
verdicts that I am guilty. This was at a time, gentlemen, when the 
amount of perjury in tEis case was not so well known as now; formerly 
my case was reviewed by a higher court and a new trial granted. 
Suppose that you should render the same verdict, and suppose I would 
be compelled to abide by that verdict, and it should be found out after 
all that I am innocent, and it will be found out; suppose that in the 
meantime that my frail constitution breaks down under the strain 
through which I have been forced to go for the past few years; sup- 
pose that my vitality is sapped and disease takes possession of my 
vital forces; suppose that my power of usefulness is all destroyed; 
suppose that in the meantime that my aged mother could no longer 
• stand the strain of witnessing the awful injuries done her son, and 
her soul takes its flight for the world of spirits, following that of my poor 
father, who died but a few months ago. And when the facts surround- 
ing this murder become known, as they will become known, and the 
world knows that I had nothing more to do with the murder of 
Senator Goebel than the jury which tried me, or had Mrs. Surratt and 
others, who were wrongfully convicted for alleged complicity in the 
assasination of Abraham Lincoln, how can you, gentlemen, live amid 
the ruin that you have caused? How could you claim as a home the 
State whose fair name you have tarnished? How could you live in 
country whose fair name you have disgraced in the committing of 
judicial murder? How could you look your fellow-men in the face, 
attend your churches and hear the gospel of justice and humanity and 
mercy and goodness preached? 

Oh, gentlemen, the awful sin of a conviction in this case, if you 
so far forget yourselves as to commit it, will always be a crushing 



134 

weight upon your conscience. It will prey upon you day by "Say and 
your slumbers will be disturbed by it at night. In vain will you wander 
this world around in seeking a place of painless rest. The ghost of 
your awful crime would be with you to upbraid you with a sense of 
your dreadful wrong. And when your stay in this world is over; when 
you have traveled through the dark valley and shadow of death and 
crossed the barren pearks of eternity, the wrongs that you have done 
he here will foTTow you and be a witness against you in the great day 
of judgment, to tell the wrongs and rehearse the agonies you brought 
to a poor innocent and helpless prisoner here on earth. 

But, gentlemen, I believe you are going to do right in this case. 
You cannot give weight to perjured testimony; you cannot credit men 
swearing for immunity; and if you are not convinced of my innocence, 
you cannot be convinced of my guilt. And I believe you are going to 
give me the full benefit of that which the most remarkable and most 
mysterious case haveleft to us all, as you have taken a solmn oath 
that you would do; and when you do that, gentlemen, I will be acquitt- 
ted and you will have discharged your duty fully to me and to your 
conscience and to your God. And when you, gentlemen, are called 
to give account of your stewardship here upon earth, the deed of your 
verdict of acquittal in this case will stand by your side and' plead, 
like an angel, trumpet-tongued for your acquittal and your deliv- 
erance. You may talk of the ruin of homes brought about 
by strong drink; talk of the pains and pangs of poverty; talk or for- 
feited friendships and trusts betrayed; talk of the misery of the wit- 
ness who has sold his honor for gold or blackened his soul with the 
awful crime of perjury; but none of these compare in wretchedness 
with the juror who fails to discharge his duty when the life of a fellow- 
citizen Is involved. 

I must soon close. I have done my best to make -clear the facts 
in this case. I know thaf my words have been weak. I will have 
to trust to you to do better work. I am not guilty. Something has 
been said by the prosecution about my lawyers begging for mercy. 
No, no, Mr. Franklin; no, no, gentlemen of the jury, I am not begging 
for mercy in this case; I am asking for pustice alone at your hands. 

But speaking of mercy, calls to my mind the German legend that 
describes man in his creation. It seems that by that legend that at 
the time the Almighty decided to make man. He called his attributes. 
Truth, Justice and Mercy, before Him and questioned them concerning 
it. To Truth, He said: "Shall we make man? " And Truth answered 
and saidi; "Make him not; he will destroy thy statutes." He then 
turned to Justice and said: "Shall we make man?" And Justice said: 
"Oh, Father, create him not; he will destroy thy statutes, bring want 
and misery to light, and bathe his hand in human blood; Father, 
create him not." And Mercy, kneeling at the throne, answered: "Oh, 



135 

create him, Father, and I will follow him, wherever he goes; by his 
errors he shall learn wisdom, and at last I will bring him back to 
Thee." And man wa» created at the behest of Mercy. 

And whatever may be said of the other noble attributes of man, 
there is none that so fills his life and the lives of others with joy 
while he remains here on earth; none that so prepares him for the 
great beyond. The angel of mercy stood by the side of Abraham Lin- 
coln in every act of his public and private life, and whipered: "Be 
merciful, be merciful." And he was merciful. 

When Robert E. Lee, the great man and greater statesman that 
he was, surrendered his army at Appomattox in good faith, he would not 
let his men go home and keep up a guerrilla warfare. Uupon his decision 
as to what should be done, rested the peace of the South and the future 
relation of the States. He was a soldier, a patriot, a statesman, and, 
above all, the nobles handiwork of God, an honest man. He wai not 
blind to his. duty by the hot blood of revenge and war still wrankling 
in the breasts of many Southern gentlemen. He was not moved by the 
passions and prejudices of the hour. He stood like a stone wall for 
the ultimate good of the South and the glory of the Union. Upon his 
shoulders rested the destiny of the Southland, and it took a great 
man to say to his men: "Go home; resume the vocations of peaceful 
lives; be as faithful to the Republic as you have been to the Con 
federacy." 

And when certain men wanted Grant to take steps to arrest Lee 
and charged him with treason, he said in no uncertain tones that 
Robert E. Lee fought for the South because he thought it his duty; 
that he was loyal to principle and true to honor and that such accu- 
sation should not be made. 

Lee and Grant were patriots. They stood upon the sublime 
heights of manhood and duty. Their judgments were not warped. Their 
devotion to duty could not be affected by the appeals of partisans. 
The prosperity and the welfare of our country depended upon noble 
and God-like action on their part. No particular section of the Union 
to please, but a country to serve. And, gentlemen, I believe that you 
will climb the sublime heights' of duty in this case, with no set of men 
to please, but your country to serve. 

Men, I must soon close. I am going to leave this case in your 
hands. I am not gfilty of that with which I am charged. The decision 
of all the juries in all this world; the testimony of all the witnesses 
in this land cannot make it so. The fact that I am innocent is un- 
changeable. Some things change and some things never do. You, 
gentlemen of the jury ,and the interested spectators in this court-room 
are all passing on to the time when your existence will be no more. 
You will soon have played your part in the great drama of life, and 
you will soon step from the stage of action over the Rive Styx into 



136 

the shadowy realms beyond. All the material things change, but 
there is one thing that all the witnesses in all this world cannot 
change, and that all the juries in the world cannot alter, and that is 
that I am innocent o'f that with which I am charged. That fact will 
live to the end of time. It is as changeless as eternity. 

A PLEA FOR HONEST JUDGMENT. 

These mad days, these prosecutions, will soon be over. Any 
temporary advantage that may be given to either political party by a 
verdict of guilty or a veridct of not guilty will soon pass away. Pos- 
terity will judge us by the rightfulness and the wrongfulness of our 
course and conduct. And I fell, gentlemen, that the angel of justice 
has been standing upon the very threshold of your hearts since this 
trial began and saying almost aloud to your consciences: "Do justice 
to this oppressed young man." 

The prosecution expects you, gentlemen, to close your eyes to the 
facts in this case, and expects you to convict me by reason of your 
politics and what they have proven against others. You remember, 
gentlemen, a great deal of the time of this court and your time were 
occupied in listening to various witnesses proving what others did. 
It is unfair to you and unfair to me to attempt' to have you convict 
me on the actions of others. I have suffered a great deal, gentlemen; 
God aloHe knows how much, but it is not for what I have done, but 
for what others have done. 

You know I have suffered; I have been in prison nearly four years. 
You gentlemen have been engaged in this trial not quite four weeks. 
You have been in a kind of prison since that trial began. You have, 
in a measure, been robbed of your liberty. You have been kept to- 
gether and had an officer over you; have been forced to stay all to- 
gether and eat at the same table at the same time and to sleep in the 
same room. I know that the days have hung heavily on your hands, 
and that the nights have been long and weary. I know that you have 
been eager to get back to your homes; been anxious to be with your 
wives and children. They, too, have been thinking the time long and 
are keeping eager eyes to see your approach; they will meet you with 
open arms and tender caresses. 

It has been a long time to them since they saw you; it has been a 
long time to you since you saw them; but how short a time compared 
with over three years, with twelve months in each year, and each month 
having thirty long days and thirty long and wetary nights, all alone in a 
prison cell, with the trash of the earth for j'our daily companions, and 
with iron bars and steel walls to mock your very existence. There, in 
a lonesome cell, filled with foul air and creeping vermin and separated 
from family and friends, hunted up and stared at by every vulgar 
curiosity-seeker in the land; classed and treated as a criminal and 



137 

branded as an outlaw. Such an existence is a living death; it is a 
million deaths. 

Gen. Reuben Davis, of Mississippi, once said: "A prison cell has 
horrors for me that the regions of the damned have not. The one is 
the inhumanity of man to man; the other the just punishment inflicted 
by an All-M^ise God for the infraction of His decrees." 

And should any of you gentlemen be tempted to render a verdict 
of guilty, and consign me to a living tomb for life, you should weigh 
well its consequences, for as has been stated, the first, the middle 
and the last consideration for a jury is the consequence of their 
verdict. 

APPEALS IN THE NAME OF HIS MOTHER. 

I can see my poor mother now, who was unable, by reason of 
physical infirmities, to attend this trial. She is sitting in her distant 
home, with a face sallow, wrinkled and careworn from the responsi- 
bilities- of life and the w^orries and troubles caused by the unjust 
prosecution of her son. With a frail and trembling hand she moves 
back the white hair from her sorry-ridden brow. She casts her wait- 
ing, watery eyes toward the scene of this trial and pleads with you, 
though far away, to spare her son the burdens of further trials and dis- 
honor. She pleads with you for justice to her son. She begs you not 
to be frightened away from your plain duty by the cruel invectives 
heaped upon his head by these gentlemen in the heat of argumnt. 
She implores you not to blot out the good name she has earned for 
her children; not to blacken the name of her home and family by a 
verdict of guilty; not to bring into disrepute and dishonor the name 
of her dead husband and his off-spring; not to hold up in shame and 
blight the fondest hopes of her heart; not to scandalize the evening 
of her life by throwing at the feet of her son the commission of such 
an awful offense; when she knows that he could not be guilty of such 
a deed. 

She besseeches you to be led alone in your consideration in this 
case by the lamplight of duty and not be tempted to outrage yourselves 
and the innocenlt by political bias, partisan feeling or party advantage. 
She begs you not to take her to an early grave in shame and hishonor; 
not to cut her son down in the days of his youth; not to extinguish 
the dearest hope of her heart; not to erase every hope of happiness 
for her and for him; not to bring down her mourning age into a grave 
of despair; not to take from her that which is dearer than life itself, 
and put upon her more than she can bear. She asks you not to reward 
liars, nor put the badges of respectability upon the brow of perjurers 
by your verdict; not to feed the greed of men upon the life-blood of 
her son, or upon the vitals of our Commonwealth; not to walk ruth- 
lessly upon broken homes and bodies; not to poison or kill her peace: 



138 

■on earth and blight and ruin her confidence in men; not to murder 
your own souls and smite your own conscience. 

This is the speech my mother makes to you. My words are barren 
and weak in conveying to you her message, but I have done my best 
and by your interest in this case you seem to say: "Stop. Speak no 
more. Let us have this case. Let the work of justice begin, for it 
has long been delayed. Stop, that we may right this wrong at once. 
Speak no more, but give us an opportunity to tear the shackles from 
your limbs; take the pallor of the dungeon from your cheeks, and ree- 
store you to health and send you home to your mother's fireside." 

And my prayer is, gentlemen, that the Giver of Light may remove 
the mystery surrounding this case and reveal the truth to you as it 
Is. May He point out to you your duty and give you strength to do it — 
yes, to liberate the suffering innocent and send an outraged boy back 
i;o the country he loves and to the countrymen who love him. 

I thank you, gentlemen, for your kind patience and indulgent 
"hearing. 



139 



At the close of the speech of Mr. Powers many of the jurors were 
in tears and there was scarcely a dry eye in the whole court-room. 
Many Goebel Democrats came to him and expressed their belief in 
his entire innnocence. 

Upon the conclusion of Mr. Powers' speeech the government's at- 
torney closed the argument for the State. It was then about 9:30 
o'clock p. m. The Court directed the jury to retire and make a ver- 
dict. The great throng of people m attendance lost none of the inter- 
est manifested during the argument of the case and remained in ex- 
pectation of a verdict. At 10 o'clock p. m. the Court directed that the 
jury be brought into Court and having been asked if a verdict had 
been reached, to which the foreman replied in the negative. When 
Court convened the next morning, the jury was sent out for further 
deliberation. Time wore slowly. The suspense was finally broken at 
a little after 11 o'clock, the jury having notified tne Court that a ver- 
dict had been reached. Mr. Powers was brought into Court. Presently 
the jurors filed in, handing to the clerk the following verdict: "We, 
the jury find the defendant guilty and fix his punishment at death." 
Thus was concluded a criminal trail, lasting more than four weeks, and 
in which there may be found abundant material for song and story, 
weird, grotesque and tragic. What the final result in this case may 
be we are unable to say. That matter addresses itself to the future, 
to the sense and sound judgemnt of the Courts of this country. 

It can be said, however, of Caleb Powers, that there has come to 
him during his short life more of shadow and storm than has fallen 
to the lot of any of his fellow men. And in the end, if all is lost, the 
fortitude, bravery and courage displayed by this young man throughout 
this long and bitter struggle will live in the heart and memory of the 
future generations, and willin some measure be a fitting mounment to 
the errors and passions of men, and in the language of Theodore- 
O'Hara, in his immortal tribute to the soldier dead, it will be said: 

"Rest on embalmed and sainted dead 
Dear as the life ye gave 
No impious footsteps shall tread 
The herbage of thy grave. 

Nor shall thy memory be forgot 
While fame her record keeps 
And honor points the hallowed spot 
Where valor proudly sleeps." 

LLEWELLYN F. SINCLAIR. 

Georgetown, Ky., Sept. 21, 1903. 



140 



EDITORIAL BY COLONEL BRECKINRIDGE ON 
THE POWERS VERDICT 

The following is an editorial, written for the Morning Herald, 
by Col. W. C. P. Breckinridge, one of the most resouceful and gifted 
men of our age. He is a Democrat. 



"The military court by whom Mrs. Surratt was condemned to be 
executed for the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, and the secretary 
of war who approved that sentence and the President who had it car- 
ried out, stand condemned at the bar of the world and posterity 
as the authors of a judicial murder. If Caleb Powers is hanged this 
will be the verdict and judgment of the world on those who fabricated 
the perjured testimony, who suborned the perjurers partly by bribery 
and partly by promises of immunity and threats of punishment, on 
those who delivered the testimony and on the tribunals before whom 
he was tried and by whom he was condemned. The unreasoning preju- 
dice of excited political hate, justifying its verdict by pretending cred- 
ence in perjured testimony will not control that ultimate verdict of in- 
fluence that settled judgment. 

Caleb Powers committed grave and reprehensible mistakes; it was 
a grave mistake to induce that body of men to come to Frankfort — 
but it was not criminal and it was not intended to commit murder. 
He was intemperate in speech — but so were many thousands of all 
parties. His acceptance of the pardon and his attempted escape in 
disguise and with an escort were extremely ill-advised; but neither 
was criminal, and the unrelenting, implacable and unscrupulous pros- 
ecution that he forsaw has proven that his jugdment of the course his 
enemies would pursue was correct. The testimony concerning these 
mistakes has been mostly adriotly and most unscrupulously woven 
with the perjury of an infamous set of perjurored jurors under the 
guidance of partisan courts have avowed justified conviction. 

Truth is often lagard in divesting her fair limbs of the clothing of 
falsehood, but she does at last appear in her own noble and convicing 
majesty, and then those who have been deceived will be objects of 
pity — those who deceived, objects of execration. 

Powers was guilty of bringing the mountain men to Frankfort; 
there was no casual connection between this and the assassination 
of Goebel. We believe he was innocent of complicity in that crime; 
but his connection with the one act has been used as a pretense for his 
eonviction of the crime. To whom the rewards will be paid is not 



141 

yet known; they have been as well earned as were the historic thirty 
pieces of silver. 

On the floor of the House of Representatives Gen. Butler destroyed 
the public career and drove into painful exile an eloquent and much 
applauded counsel and politician. Gen. Brigham: "I decline to yield to 
him who compassed the murder of an innocent woman." It may b© 
that in the not remote future in the face of some ambitious participa- 
tor in the prosecution of Caleb Powers a similar retort will be flung." 



LtMy'lS 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



014 613 926 7 



